Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 08:14:10 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980531080819.3937A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <17376.896521066@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Devfs is synthetic and maybe we shouldn't even allow removes in the > first place but a whiteout/undelete solution is the "POLA" choice. > > Alternatively devfs could allow mknod, but ignore the major/minor > numbers given and just "DTRT", that would work also after we have > killed dev_t. I agree with either of these options. The whiteout solution would mean a lot of hacking on a devfs_lookup(). Being able to refresh the node using mknod without the major/minor arguments or ignoring the arguments and just DTRT sounds good to me. 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?Pine.SV4.3.95.980531080819.3937A-100000>