I just learned to love absolute paths.
IIRC, there was no deadlock caused that you should be aware of.
I'ts been a long time and quite a few protocols since then, I can look for the source; there must be also some docs in the web.
Also, I'm more in favor of prefix mount tables, that they are very different from what 9 does and they would lead to a very different system.
Good luck and have fun.
> On 2 May 2018, at 19:14, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:
>
> 2013-06-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 Nemo <nemo.mbox@gmail.com>:
> You should ask if anyone else did that before doing it, instead of saying
> they are un-spined life forms.
>
> Here I am, finally! :-)
>
> I'm designing yet another file protocol for my toy/research os (whose kernel is derived from Charles Forsyth's Plan9-9k), and I'd like to give a look at your prior art.
>
> Some of my design decisions lead to a management of mount tables that is pretty similar to what you describe in your paper about the integration of 9P2000.ix.
>
> Given you already walked this path, I'd like to know what you have learnt and if you faced issues I should be aware.
> For example, the slight difference in bind semantics seems to reduce the risk of accidental loops in the namespace, but I would expect it would break related userspace assumptions.
> Also, resolving the dot of each process in the Pgrp each time a mount is done, seems pretty complex and prone to deadlocks.
>
>
> Don't you have a tricorder?
>
> No... but usually I can get away with my sonic screwdriver... :-)
>
>
> Giacomo
>