From owner-cvs-all Mon May 14 7: 8:38 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0642C37B423; Mon, 14 May 2001 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4EE8Hp20848; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:08:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Robert Watson Cc: Greg Lehey , Eric Melville , Kris Kennaway , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Destroying and remaking device nodes (was: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options src/sys/alpha/conf GENERIC src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC NEWCARD NOTES src/sys/ia64/conf GENERIC src/sys/pc98/conf GENERIC src/sys/fs/devfs devfs_devs.c devfs_vfsops.c devfs_vnops.c) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 May 2001 10:01:07 EDT." Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:08:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20846.989849297@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Robe rt Watson writes: > >On Mon, 14 May 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message , Robe >> rt Watson writes: >> >> >Personally, I'd like to see rm unmodified: part of the goal here is to >> >allow /dev to act like a normal file system from the perspective of >> >management tools (including things like graphical file managers). >> >Modifying base system tools is going to hurt later. We should really just >> >allow rm and rm -W to work as normal. They use documented APIs as they >> >exist already. >> >> I have had a number of people ask for "mknod" instead of "rm -W" and >> after thinking about it I guess that is the most POLA compliant >> solution. >> >> I'll work that one tonight if I can. > >On the other hand, from the perspective of dynamically allocated device >major numbers for kernel modules, using whiteout *also* makes sense. :-) >You can't mknod a device without a priori knowledge of its device numbers. >As long as we like that assertion, I'm fine with us using mknod. I intended to ignore the major and minor arguments in mknod(2), simply treating it as a request to re-create the named node. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message