Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 10:08:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, jkh@time.cdrom.com, mike@smith.net.au, eivind@yes.no, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <199805311008.DAA20780@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980531080819.3937A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at May 31, 98 08:14:10 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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(). The use of whiteout is best implemented in the lookup code. This is why the directory name lookup cache should be in the namei code instead of in the underlying code. This implies a "non-cacheable" bit on a per FS basis. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199805311008.DAA20780>