From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 1 17:34:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20360 for freebsd-arch-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:34:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA20343 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:34:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA02833 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:34:16 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id CAA89787 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:34:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles215.castles.com [208.214.165.215]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18850 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:19:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA03885; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:16:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901020116.RAA03885@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Joerg Wunsch cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jan 1999 01:04:59 +0100." <19990102010459.42125@uriah.heep.sax.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:16:09 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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