From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <49b6d41cf111f688b1fea57aa8c24936@terzarima.net>
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:16:59 +0100
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <CC391EDE-A712-43F3-9F44-C725F5924D2C@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] RFS alternatives (Was: Living with Plan 9)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f3a26fde-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>ioctl was handled by having the client "know" exactly what each ioctl "looked like", i.e. it only worked for known cases.

there isn't really any other choice, especially between machines
with different conventions. i think it was one of the bigger parts
of the newcastle connection implementation. that's also why plan 9
doesn't do it that way, but `old dogs' etc.