From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9511f83e0902061913t2ff2c26bvd446ffe7ed8c30a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <9511f83e0902061913t2ff2c26bvd446ffe7ed8c30a0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:47:08 -0600 Message-ID: From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] /net different from sockets, but better? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9932a462-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I may have some existing code based on npfs that you can use as a base. It has the basic semantics down, but had at least one bug and was somewhat incomplete. I'll dig around and see if I can find it - it may be of some use as a reference, particularly for how to deal with the clone file. -eric On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Rahul Murmuria wrote: > I am planning on porting the /net concept of Plan9 to Linux. > > My Plan: > Use libfs[1] to write a synthetic filesystem in Linux, much like > securityfs[2], or /proc. This libfs based code will make calls to the TCP/IP > stack on the linux, and basically be an alternative to the Linux kernel > sockets. As a result I will expose networking using /net, instead of POSIX > to the applications. > > My Motivation: > Glendix[3] > > My Question: > I know that using /net instead of sockets is very different. But is it > better? Specially from the networking side of things, not from application > development point of view (which we have already established is simpler, by > example). > > [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/57369/ > [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/153366/ > [3] http://glendix.org/ and http://glendix.org/glendix_iwp9_2008.pdf > and http://www.osnews.com/story/20588/ > > Regards, > > -- > Rahul Murmuria > >