Re: [9front] mycroftiv's zrv and rfork V, patch for current 9front

[ori@eigenstate.org]

Quoth cinap_lenrek@felloff.net:
> this implementation seemes flawed to me.
> 
> closesgrp() appears only to free the memory of the Srv*
> nodes, but doesnt actually free srv->chan, srv->owner
> and srv->name.
> 
> also the locking seems suspicious. as the global Srv*
> list was just replaced with per process one, but we'r
> still only have a single srvlock to serialize
> concurrent access to it.
> 
> so far, the srvgrp can only be reset or shared depending
> of the RFCSRVG flag. once you implement copying you'd
> need a lock per Sgrp. i'd prefer to have a lock per
> Sgrp right now and remove the global srvlock.
> 
> pexit() should move the sgrp = up->sgrp; up->sgrp = nil
> in the exiting qlock(&up->debug);... block instead of
> making its own.
> 
> why do we need /zrv? is there a new devzrv.c device that
> was missing in the diff?
> 
> --
> cinap
> 

On top of that, I think rfork flags aren't a very
nice semantic. What about reworking to

	bind '#s/clone' /srv

to create a new fork of a srv, without adding new
special namespace cases?

That also eliminates the need for zrv, since you
can just keep the old /srv bound somewhere else.