Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:51:34 -0600 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev Message-ID: <20000328155134.P18325@holly.calldei.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpsnxbxor2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <20000317230632.I24374@holly.calldei.com> <xzpsnxbxor2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, March 28, 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > I tried this and got some weird problems - some programs seemed to > have trouble accessing other device nodes in /dev (non-fdesc ones). > Not much of an error report, I know, but it's been a rough week and I > didn't bother to write anything down. The problems went away when I > unmounted the fdesc file system. I'm working on fdesc now. It's riddled with bugs at this point. > 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? I agree with symlinks as well. This would make the fdesc code _considerably_ simpler and a lot more elegant than it is now, since it would not need to place anything (tty, stderr, stdin, stdout) in /dev. -- |Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> |My Go this amn keyboar oesn't have any 's. `--------------------------------------------- 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?20000328155134.P18325>