From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:53:10 +0200 From: "Sander van Dijk" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080622142021.A7DB31E8C1C@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080622142021.A7DB31E8C1C@holo.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] 'stuck' windows. Topicbox-Message-UUID: c5ae189c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 6/22/08, Russ Cox wrote: > Rob wrote the script below, called "namespace", years ago. > It is essentially a script version of newns. > You could do > > 9fs boot > namespace /n/boot dossrv > > if you really wanted to, but that seems like overkill to me. It sure would be. My main reason for exploring this was to learn how to do it, not necessarily because it would be a good idea to actually do it. > Just FYI, you are mucking around in one of the > least satisfactory parts of the system: dossrv, 9660srv, etc. > The fact that they interpret the mount spec as a file name > in their own name space means that if you already have > dossrv running in one window and do > > import othermachine /dev/sdC0 > mount /srv/dos /n/other /dev/sdC0/dos > > dossrv doesn't see othermachine's disks. So in general > you wouldn't want dossrv itself to clear its name space, > and it is debatable whether 9fat, c:, etc. should. Thanks for the explanation, it answers a question I hadn't asked yet: I was wondering why the usbfat: script starts a new dossrv (posting it under /srv/usbfat.$user), rather than reusing a possibly already exisiting dossrv. (One of) the reason(s) is that the files in /n/disk it needs most likely aren't available to any existing instance of dossrv. Greetings, Sander.