I suppose you could implement the same Tinval Rinval Tinval ....
protocol just by issuing sequential reads on a changes file, but you´d have to modify both the server and the client even if it´s by using a file and not by including a new transaction in 9p. I admit that good thing of using a file is that 9p remains untouched. On 11/1/07, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is similar to the "changes" file proposed above, but it´s simple, does > > not > > require two new RPCs (a server would respond to a Tinval with an Rerror > > (unknown request or whatever), is not an upcall (although behaves as one) > > and > > may both let the client know which files changed and which cache > > entries are invalid. > > the advantage of the changes file is that it requires no new rpcs at all > so you can do it today > >
