Conversation
- 9P server does not need to take flags (guest does) - forgot to wire up the unmount unmarshal logic - const name changed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes: #13
Initial draft for 9P host and guest implementations.
Seems to work for read-only stuff. Still need to do tests with writable systems since some required operations are probably missing implementations at the moment.
(I had this working a few months ago but forgot to publish the draft. Oops.)
Example server/host invocation:
fs mount 9p ipfs $multiaddrwould host the IPFS API on
$multiaddrwhich a client could then attach to.Example guest/client invocation:
fs mount fuse 9p -9p-server $multiaddr $mountpointwould attach to
$multiaddrand mount it (via FUSE) at$mountpointThe invocation names and flags may change. Suggestions welcomed.
I'm not sure if
9p-server,9p-clientwould be better than keeping them both as just9p.We only support 9P2000.L at the moment, but this may change in the far future. If/when it does we'd probably support a
-protocl-versionflag to select specific ones, or they could be broken out into a unique command namespace.E.g.
fs mount 9p2000l ipfs ...but this may be too verbose and not sensible to implement compared to a singular9pwith flags.