From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: <9fans@9fans.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:28:58 -0500 From: EBo In-Reply-To: References: <9b73a2f7842fdf54ca57423261c7ae78@brasstown.quanstro.net> <201109081504.36357.dexen.devries@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8a566d6213ccc61e0b989514563fd8c1@swcp.com> User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.4-trunk Subject: Re: [9fans] 9ttp Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1c13adc0-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:18:16 -0700, David Leimbach wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, ron minnich > wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren >> wrote: >> >> > I do not think it is acceptable to have to fork repeatedly merely >> to >> > efficiently read a file. Also, as far as I can tell, exactly one >> > program (fcp) does that. >> > >> > Can a single process have multiple outstanding requests? My >> > investigations indicated not, but then again I may have mis-read >> > things. >> >> So, John, you don't think it's reasonable to rewrite every program a >> la fcp? How unreasonable of you :-) > > "Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger..." On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:20:37 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > alternatively, the mount driver could be rewritten. coconuts? EBo --