Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:19:31 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, "Alex G. Bulushev" <bag@sinbin.demos.su> Cc: sepotvin@videotron.ca, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <19980601211931.09973@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <3572FBD0.33590565@whistle.com>; from Julian Elischer on Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 12:06:56PM -0700 References: <199806010816.MAA12889@sinbin.demos.su> <3572FBD0.33590565@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 12:06:56PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > THis is the single best argument I've heard for allowing > devfs type nodes on a normal fs. :-) > > certainly DEVFS makes the case of providing devices to chroot > environments a lot more 'heavyweight' > > A number of things to note about this: > 1/ There is a suggestion that there be a mount option that simply > mounts an EMPTY devfs, which would then be populatable using some > form of mknod (which uses the name to create the device and not the > major/minor) Can't this easily be done by mounting a DEVFS, wiping it, mounting one more, and ln'ing in the nodes? No changes required to do that... Eivind. 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?19980601211931.09973>