From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <87d73ze8m1.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20011007063552.5D39C199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 2001 09:41:35 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0194f5b0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com (Russ Cox) writes:

> How would you determine whether it would work?
> How would you specify it to the underlying 9P server?

We had this problem in the Hurd, and the answer was give to one of the
servers for the two names (it doesn't matter which) your capability
for the other server.  

Then if both are handled by the same server (what Unix thinks of as
"same filesystem") it can be done directly.  If not, the server could
return EXDEV (as Unix does).  Or, two cooperating servers might have a
private protocol for arranging it between them.  

I don't know whether this would work in Plan 9, though I'm interested
in hearing details.  Can you hand your capability for one server off
to the other?