From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:25:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHL7psE__LHoBmm9rFwJV94wU64TYYUMywqkR9LP6VQdNWVQOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146ee3858403d05339d3300
Subject: [9fans] create/create race
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 946fb758-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

--001a1146ee3858403d05339d3300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm pretty curious about the create(2)/create(5) race described in a
comment in namec (see
https://github.com/brho/plan9/blob/master/sys/src/9/port/chan.c#L1564-L1603)

Does anyone know or remember the reasoning behind this design?

What was wrong about using the create(5) semantics for the create(2)
syscall?


Giacomo

--001a1146ee3858403d05339d3300
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>I&#39;m pretty curious about the create(2)/=
create(5) race described in a comment in namec (see <a href=3D"https://gith=
ub.com/brho/plan9/blob/master/sys/src/9/port/chan.c#L1564-L1603">https://gi=
thub.com/brho/plan9/blob/master/sys/src/9/port/chan.c#L1564-L1603</a>)<br><=
br></div>Does anyone know or remember the reasoning behind this design?<br>=
<br></div>What was wrong about using the create(5) semantics for the create=
(2) syscall?<br><br><br></div>Giacomo<br></div>

--001a1146ee3858403d05339d3300--