From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> <140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:20:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.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: 1f042444-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM, roger peppe wrote: > 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? > > I perfectly agree. And I used to think this was how FUSE is working, but this has been only an uneducated guess.