Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:41:56 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> Cc: chris@calldei.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev Message-ID: <1494.954247316@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "28 Mar 2000 14:38:38 %2B0200." <xzpg0tbxoa9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzpg0tbxoa9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> writes: >> In message <xzpsnxbxor2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >> > Anyway, since /dev/std* never change, how about having fdesc *only* >> > handle the /dev/fd/* stuff, so you can (non-union) mount it on /dev/fd >> > and let /dev/std* be either symlinks to /dev/fd/[012] or plain old >> > static device nodes like they're now? >> Symlinks have my vote. > >The downside is they'll be broken if fdesc isn't mounted... Well, they would too if fdesc implemented them, wouldn't they ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1494.954247316>