From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <599f06db0604180608o68d142bbi3acecf4077288230@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:08:01 +0200 From: "Gorka guardiola" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] replica's _* files In-Reply-To: <20060418125320.GA464@routi.local.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <444402F1.9040301@gmail.com> <077d0d5f265520782ac4ebef832f7cea@swtch.com> <775b8d190604180244o71d59d15lb1596481daed3ba2@mail.gmail.com> <20060418125320.GA464@routi.local.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3a459656-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 If I got it right, you didnt. This is for files which are already being exe= cuted and loaded in demand so that, for example the rio *which is alredy running* doesnt get broken if all the binary is not loaded yet. The file is already = in use, so the name doesnt get resolved again. As long as you dont delete it will continue to be used even if you rename it. On 4/18/06, Sascha Retzki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:44:47PM +1000, Bruce Ellis wrote: > > unfortunately this method does'nt solve the problem. > > [...] > > i'd rather them be rename in _i++. > > > > Actually I reboot after an update automatically, exactly because of this > problem; I don't see a reason for a renaming in the first place. > Informing the user that he shall reboot should be enough. > > > And, did I get it right, you rename files which may be executed, so how > do these actually know about that? Something needs to be changed so > that pages are loaded from _rio, else that prefixing-part is rendered > useless. > > > So it is probably just me who sees "bloat" here... my two cents > > -- - curiosity sKilled the cat