Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 03:10:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <199805310710.DAA18304@rtfm.ziplink.net> In-Reply-To: <199805310154.SAA08633@antipodes.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at "May 30, 98 06:54:47 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith once stated: => May be this should be the semantics of `rm' on the DEVFS? => Removal of the driver, or telling it to stop driving a => particular device? (If possible, otherwise, rm fails?) mknod => (or, `touch'!!) can then be used to load the driver back (if => possible). =Not useful. You want to poke a single entity (the driver) and =have it remove all it's nodes, rather than have to guess at all =the nodes everywhere that it might own and run around deleting =them all. Not necessarily. By removing /dev/lpt1 I may be telling the lpt driver to stop driving the second lport, but the lpt0 may continue to work. There are plenty of possible interpretations of rm in this case, I wonder if any other OS has DEVFS already and how do they deal with this... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805310710.DAA18304>