From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:58:29 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <3f024959ca2c1a4bdeffc68a62b6d4b1@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimGUm68dTC+MNwoX60ZcXiCaAq0jQ3U4koLGOw3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinEZZu-8qKfh6u3qdcJbcE6M_=eQjqBxP_2PkCG@mail.gmail.com>
	<d555a1ae7e1735204d7ee20381034260@terzarima.net>
	<AANLkTikj+kT7f_UHMmXeBXd1NmfqBWP7oaeShywowv3D@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimGUm68dTC+MNwoX60ZcXiCaAq0jQ3U4koLGOw3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 706a3976-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Assuming messages are not reordered.

ah, the easy problems can be taken care of by using 1 clunker
and a clunk channel with a fixed buffer.  i'd like to know
more about charles' correctness concerns.  not that this particular
example is all that useful.  cf. nemo

> My argument is that I'd like the operation to be able to fail in
> general, and to be
> synchronous, so I could get an error status (despite caches being
> placed in the middle).

- erik