From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <62bde7ee0bc7ccdee84657319b0d5eb3@terzarima.net>
References: <AANLkTi=JChj6HGiPptpw9PdJ6PwpkMOMyLTXgsb4uQY7@mail.gmail.com>
	<62bde7ee0bc7ccdee84657319b0d5eb3@terzarima.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:02:59 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_N1Mwqnoi0uXdkppsrW35awa+k06Mfhwby6Fe@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: 71fd5868-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 29 October 2010 17:01, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>>Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?.
>
> it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken.
>
> having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait
> for the Rclunk is different.

for some reason, though i didn't look at the diffs, i thought
that's what this patch did.

even sending Tclunk synchronously is still problematic in quite a few scenarios,
for the reasons i outlined above.