From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <467C31EB.1060302@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:32:43 +0200
From: Philippe Anel <xigh@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] About 9P ...
References: <46783873.4060804@free.fr>
	<20070622013243.B21140@mrwint.cisco.com>	<467B72FC.2020808@free.fr>
	<20070622165754.D21140@mrwint.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070622165754.D21140@mrwint.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 850373d8-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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
>
>