From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:29:49 EDT."
	<f23a7494364b1340848dbdfa1606b37d@ladd.quanstro.net>
References: <86iojlmin5.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<20141015170124.74DE5B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<f23a7494364b1340848dbdfa1606b37d@ladd.quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:03:23 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20141015190323.8864CB82A@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] server push in 9P protocol
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1d603ff2-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:29:49 EDT erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > A server can return responses in any order since each request
> > has a client defined unique tag associated with it. Don't see
> > why the same connection can't be used both sides to act as a
> > server for the other....  Though this assumption may be
> > implicit in code.
>
> mnt driver only only keeps one outstanding per client, so
> this point is moot without changes to the mnt driver.

Indeed. My point was that for "server push", you don't have to
extend the protocol, only implementations :-)