From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 29 10:54:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E4F37B86E for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:54:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27079 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:57:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA07992 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:54:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0B137BE34 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:50:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25562; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:50:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA8Eaq1X; Wed Mar 29 11:49:51 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA22495; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:50:19 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200003291850.LAA22495@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev To: des@flood.ping.uio.no (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:50:19 +0000 (GMT) Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp), chris@calldei.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" at Mar 28, 2000 02:38:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > In message , Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: > > > 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? > > Symlinks have my vote. > > The downside is they'll be broken if fdesc isn't mounted... The other downside is that, unlike devfs contents, they'll get just as stale just as fast as /dev gets out of date with the currently running kernel and/or MAKEDEV. 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-arch" in the body of the message