From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0907110843190.5249@malasada.lava.net>
	<0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSI.4.64.0907110901260.5249@malasada.lava.net>
	<140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com>
	<f158dc670907130808g6ecfdf44ncf3f4b3b82c1b611@mail.gmail.com>
	<140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:08:13 +0100
Message-ID: <df49a7370907140408m148e2346pb71f054d51c8942d@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] v9fs question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1ee6ad92-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

this is at a bit of a tangent from the previous discussion,
but something i've always wondered:

why does the linux 9p mount syscall bother
with IP addresses at all? isn't it sufficient
just to provide a facility for mounting a file descriptor
(like the plan 9 syscall) and have an auxiliary
command do the actual dial, authentication, etc?

wouldn't that be simpler and just as versatile?