From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:31:54 -1000 From: Tim Newsham To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> <140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 20475128-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > this is at a bit of a tangent from the previous discussion, > but something i've always wondered: > > why does the linux 9p mount syscall bother > with IP addresses at all? isn't it sufficient > just to provide a facility for mounting a file descriptor > (like the plan 9 syscall) and have an auxiliary > command do the actual dial, authentication, etc? > > wouldn't that be simpler and just as versatile? The v9fs driver lets you mount from a file descriptor. Is this what you're asking for? Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/