From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <8499c10898364f847da389d2080a4556@terzarima.net>
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:04:48 +0100
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=JChj6HGiPptpw9PdJ6PwpkMOMyLTXgsb4uQY7@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: 71e24816-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait
>for the Rclunk is different.

ah. having thought about it, i see it's different only in the case of
one process. it isn't different if you have several processes that are
trying to co-operate in an allowed way: failing to let the issuing
process know when the operation has actually been completed prevents
it from communicating that to another process, but on the other hand,
with the existing constructions, it can't find out.