From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5062a802cc16cbd544c6bfab4b29ef52@brasstown.quanstro.net> References: <5062a802cc16cbd544c6bfab4b29ef52@brasstown.quanstro.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:34:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: roger peppe To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx (is this the right list)? import issue Topicbox-Message-UUID: 759919b8-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2009/9/22 erik quanstrom : >> if it's ambiguous, then the tag should indeed be put on hold, >> because there's no way to get it right. > > how do we prevent all tags from being on hold? > there's no way to get that right, either. well, it's legal to send several flushes for the same tag, and it's also legal to send a flush of a non-existent tag, so if there's a case of ambiguity, we could resend the flush and drop the original rpc struct when the reply to that comes back (or the original reply comes back).