From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e7eb83fb6d7b24a5c0040aeab57a2aba@lsub.org>
References: <df49a7370904231022g1ce3d3f9sf172b095898b9592@mail.gmail.com>
	<e7eb83fb6d7b24a5c0040aeab57a2aba@lsub.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:53:46 +0100
Message-ID: <df49a7370904231053o261ee42doe563fbc8aa6ad83a@mail.gmail.com>
From: roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2010
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f1643ace-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

2009/4/23 Fco. J. Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>:
> But if you do that (send sequences from userl-level)
> you must interpret your namespace yourself. When I tried to
> detect how to bundle calls for plan b, a problem I had was
> namec. For me it's still not clear how to detect cleanly
> `what to batch', even if you change the source for the
> program doing I/O to help there, because of the mount
> table.

i guess that the current design of the walk message
shows what can be batched, but i agree, the
mount table is at the core of the issue.

i wonder how many things would break if plan 9 moved to
a strictly name-based mapping for its mount table...