From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <35dbd2d8996bf96d65c969836bd2e172@terzarima.net> <4FB02A06-85AA-45F8-9334-9B956FB11F86@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:17:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Francisco J Ballesteros To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk Topicbox-Message-UUID: 70d78828-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Yep. I did propose QTDECENT, and those files would have QTDECENT set. That's what I mean. I don't agree with your definition for decency. It's indecent [kidding ;)] On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nemo wrote: >> >> i have decent servers that wait for clunk to operate on written data once >> it's complete. all octopus spoolers do that. > > Heh; when I wrote 'decent', I was recalling the old proposed QTDECENT qid > type. I didn't mean to impugn your file servers; they're probably very nice > people and if I met them, I'd should buy them a drink. > > 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, ... > > -- vs >