From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7284e314-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote: >> Let's try to define 'decent' for this thread -- a decent fileserver is one >> on which close()s do not have any client-visible or semantic effect other >> than to invalidate the Fid that was passed to them. Lets see how many file >> servers we can think of that are 'decent': fossil, kfs, ken, memfs, ... > > unfortunately, fossil and kfs both can have important visible state changes on a clunk, > so that lets them out. > qid.vers? What else? What % of apps depend on the visible stage change? Sorry - I'm not really trying to be an ass (even though I may be succeeding), I'm just trying to get an idea of the actual negative impact. I imagine if I made this change in v9fs for Linux servers I wouldn't see any negative behavior at all. -eric