From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60706221410l20d22b87had1497198b60abe7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:10:41 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] About 9P ... In-Reply-To: <467C31EB.1060302@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_112595_29362822.1182546641966" References: <46783873.4060804@free.fr> <20070622013243.B21140@mrwint.cisco.com> <467B72FC.2020808@free.fr> <20070622165754.D21140@mrwint.cisco.com> <467C31EB.1060302@free.fr> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8592ef04-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_112595_29362822.1182546641966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Transactions are tagged right? So you can, in fact, have many in flight at once. Perhaps I'm missing what you meant by pipelined. On 6/22/07, Philippe Anel wrote: > > Well even if it can work, I don't think 9P was designed to allow such > type of > operation. Indeed, 9P basis is the transaction : ie a Request followed > by a Reply. > So I think you should not pipeline the requests. > Can a 9P specialist can confirm this ? If so ... I now understand why > Fids are > (or must be) choosen by the client. > > Phil; > > Well, I've not read the protocol details for a while. > > But from memory I thought it allowed this type of operation: > > > > send: open,fid,file > > send: read,fid,args > > send: read,fid,args > > > > (wait one rtt) > > > > recv: open success/fail > > recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid > > recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid > > > > DF > > > > > > -- - Passage Matthew 5:37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. ------=_Part_112595_29362822.1182546641966 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Transactions are tagged right?  So you can, in fact, have many in flight at once.

Perhaps I'm missing what you meant by pipelined.


On 6/22/07, Philippe Anel <xigh@free.fr> wrote:
Well even if it can work, I don't think 9P was designed to allow such
type of
operation. Indeed, 9P basis is the transaction : ie a Request followed
by a Reply.
So I think you should not pipeline the requests.
Can a 9P specialist can confirm this ? If so ... I now understand why
Fids are
(or must be) choosen by the client.

    Phil;
> Well,  I've not read the protocol details for a while.
> But from memory I thought it allowed this type of operation:
>
>     send: open,fid,file
>     send: read,fid,args
>     send: read,fid,args
>
>     (wait one rtt)
>
>     recv: open success/fail
>     recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid
>     recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid
>
> DF
>
>




--
- Passage Matthew 5:37:
   But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
------=_Part_112595_29362822.1182546641966--