Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that might just have been an oversight, and it seems entirely > > reasonable for filesystems to refuse to do anything synchronous (let the > > message queuing do it). > > If Thomas agrees, I will change it to simpleroutines, because I agree.
This is absolutely true. It's simpleroutines in diskfs precisely because of this. Not to mention the security point, there is also a great potential for deadlock. I mean, what if your server for the notifications wanted to, say, write a notation in a file somewhere? _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
