From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=NQm5ScgKwJpKL8FvQe0ZObSgDdCd5QnssOti9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX=TOj5_k8mG88O0Lfnb-uGDK6BzkuMZqGACzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbb7239e8c352e8db20ca68c849e381a@terzarima.net>
	<AANLkTi=NQm5ScgKwJpKL8FvQe0ZObSgDdCd5QnssOti9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:21:04 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAnAA6+ky9qn29tuAqjTx2SUmVW258CRzoN4B=@mail.gmail.com>
From: roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com>
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: 71ba1cba-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 29 October 2010 15:14, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand things correctly, where does this mess
> things up with standard (as opposed to synthetic) file systems?

i think that part of the problem is that plan 9 makes no distinction
between "standard" and "synthetic" file systems.

perhaps if there was, then optimisations like this could
work a little less haphazardly.