Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:16:09 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... Message-ID: <199901020116.RAA03885@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jan 1999 01:04:59 %2B0100." <19990102010459.42125@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I don't particularly like the idea that you can thus destroy a device > access point accidentally. I'd like to see some method for the > sysadmin to tell the kernel to `go back and re-establish its idea of > the DEVFS'. My personal preference for this is for it to be handled by mknod. The mknod(2) syscall would un-whiteout a device node (or nodes), allowing you to bring them back from the dead (perhaps modulo securelevel). > If at all (readers might notice I'm not much a fanatic of persistence > here ;), then it should be an ASCII file somewhere. By no means, it > should be recorded in some unmanipulatable form. Personally, I think a persistent DEVFS would be "better" than a non-persistent DEVFS. But it's been quite clear for some time that persistence is something that can be built onto a working DEVFS, so a non-persistent DEVFS is something that we definitely want to start with. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?199901020116.RAA03885>