From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 4 4:21:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A2237B400; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F031743E09; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:21:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA08503; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:21:48 +1000 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:27:49 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Mario Goebbels , Subject: Re: About GEOM... In-Reply-To: <20020704092253.GW75946@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20020704210304.Y21619-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I > think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs > is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more > logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain > your objections. This has been discussed before. Basically, devfs creates work by moving problems around without any significant benefits. I expect control of devfs device visibility and persistence of devfs device attributes would end up mostly in a utility (devd?). But once you have such a utility, you don't need devfs (or MAKEDEV). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message