From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL? From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:35:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: e26a689c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > remember something similar to what Eric remembers: qid.vers of zero > > means `don't cache'. It might not be written down; it may have just > > been oral folklore at the labs. > > when the 9p2000 man pages were initially posted to this list for discussion, > i made a suggestion to that effect, and i seem to recall rob > saying "not a bad idea, but we haven't done it yet". here you argue that using the qid.version to infer something about the file is a good idea > > >> this is not true of devsd devices. the version is used to deal with >> removable devices. if you have a cd open and the media is changed, >> i/o to the device will return Echange. > > using qid.version to indicate the status of the underlying device > rather than of the file data seems to me like an abuse of the system. > surely a status file would be a better way of indicating media change? yet here you argue that using the qid.version to indicate that the medium underlying sdXX/data has changed is an "abuse". to be a bit picky, the qid.version doesn't indicate the status of the device, it indicates how many times the media have changed. it doesn't make sense for a process to blithly continue writing to the new medium without getting an error. - erik