From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <cb68db4f0df442e9775bcaaa1c8fe598@coraid.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P2000 and p9p
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:55:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <461C45A4.3060909@tecmav.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 448f76bc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> This is a different situation. In the example above read an write are 
> done by one program and are  from/to the same file server.
> The kernel knows where/when/what it reads/writes.
> A task "exec in kernel" (EMT also in Plan9 ? I don't know)
> one syscall at a time. To avoid the problem, the read after
> a write must be performed ignoring the EOD. The second read in
> a read-read seq must be short-circuited when the EOD is active.
> Each read sets the EOD (or time window) to guide the kernel for the next 
> read.
> 

i don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.  this seems like
a special case.  maybe as such, you want a protocol other than 9p.

the great thing about plan 9 is it's a way of working.  it's not a protocol
or implementation.

- erik