From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <140e7ec30907141205qaa2350g92a7ec5c1f0347b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> <140e7ec30907141205qaa2350g92a7ec5c1f0347b7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:11:30 -0500 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: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 208aecbc-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:05 PM, sqweek wrote: > > =A0I'm not too fond of the idea... It's not as though amount adds any > new functionality over srv+mount[1], and I hate throwing more code at > a problem when equivalent code exists elsewhere. Having to introduce a > link time dependency on p9p doesn't help convince me either - the > current arrangement seems to provide a decent seperation of > responsibility. > =A0The mount.9p symlink sounds pretty reasonable though, I'll get around > to that sometime. > > [1] actually back when I read over amount I even concluded that it > used the same trick as srv -a just with a pipe instead of unix socket! > failed to notice the Tversion/Tattach subtlety. is it really worth the > coupling to go back to that approach? > Its not exactly the same. amount didn't use a pipe, it started the connection with an fd, did the auth and then passes the fd to the kernel to use. The use of the pipe adds extra copies on all data after authentication. This is the overhead involved with the srv approach that I mentioned. IMHO it is worth it for the performance. There's also the security implications of the srv approach, but I was never really much concerned with that angle. -eric