From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 29 14:20:41 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01EF16A401 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:20:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9835E13C461 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:20:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725851A4D87; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CB9A540E5; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:20:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:20:30 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Freminlins Message-ID: <20070129142029.GA45960@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070126174826.GA13730@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070126234756.GA19420@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070128184925.GB61662@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: mknod, devfs and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:20:41 -0000 --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote: > Kris, >=20 > On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > >I not understand this no sentence :) >=20 >=20 > Sorry, I didn't read what I typed. I meant to type "Was the effect of this > considered at all?" Yes it was. The benefits of dynamic devices were considered to outweight the downsides of having to mount a devfs instance. > What reasons, other than cosmetic, do you have for not wanting to do > >this? >=20 >=20 > Well, I am sure you would agree it is simpler to mknod for a small subset= of > /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing = set > up which works perfectly as it is. Actually I disagree. Once you write the simple devfs ruleset it is a single command to instantiate a new /dev. You don't have to worry about making each individual device node N times and possibly making a mistake. Of course you probably have a script to do this now, but that just means you need to adjust your script as part of your migration strategy. > It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I t= ake > your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't > pretty. To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get over :-) Kris --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFvgKtWry0BWjoQKURAnnnAJ4vb1Q6nMmSY3pLuNQb+ivSXRHvbACgmXV+ KLJqiF+Hi0epKCogWYpDH1c= =g2X1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--