From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jul 27 18:50:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7CF37C1A5; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:50:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07557; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:48:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:48:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Jack Rusher Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much do we need the all-singing, all-dancing devfs? In-Reply-To: <3980C360.BB897C3A@integratus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Which is also why I want to do this possibly *without* the current instantiation of devfs. On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Jack Rusher wrote: > Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > Kind of. From my understanding of the way devices/VFS holds together, the > > underlying devsw can't change while the machine is running, so your > > (SCSI/IDE/Fibrechannel) device drivers and whatever disklabel layer you > > use would have to keep the devsw mapping static. > > ...which strikes me as pretty lousy. New disks can come and go > (especially if they are attached to a fabric). In fact, in a more > general sense, a lot of things can be dynamically registered and > deregistered using modern bus architectures. > > -- > Jack Rusher, Senior Engineer | mailto:jar@integratus.com > Integratus, Inc. | http://www.integratus.com > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message