From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:36:56 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <d85ff7e7f29fc8c48c7adef098f9d526@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinAnAA6+ky9qn29tuAqjTx2SUmVW258CRzoN4B=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX=TOj5_k8mG88O0Lfnb-uGDK6BzkuMZqGACzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbb7239e8c352e8db20ca68c849e381a@terzarima.net>
	<AANLkTi=NQm5ScgKwJpKL8FvQe0ZObSgDdCd5QnssOti9@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinAnAA6+ky9qn29tuAqjTx2SUmVW258CRzoN4B=@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 71bf2282-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i think that part of the problem is that plan 9 makes no distinction
> between "standard" and "synthetic" file systems.
>
> perhaps if there was, then optimisations like this could
> work a little less haphazardly.

what's a reasonable definition of "standard"?

- erik