Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:17:18 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c src/sys/alpha/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/include memdev.h src/sys/amd64/amd64 io.c mem.c src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES src/sys/amd64/include iodev.h memdev.h src/sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 ... Message-ID: <20040803021718.GA5460@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <200408021600.00339.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200408011140.i71BesOt070889@repoman.freebsd.org> <200408021600.00339.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 04:00:00PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday 01 August 2004 07:40 am, Mark Murray wrote: > > markm 2004-08-01 11:40:54 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/alpha/alpha mem.c > > sys/alpha/conf GENERIC > > sys/amd64/amd64 mem.c > > sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES > > sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 > > files.i386 files.ia64 files.pc98 > > files.sparc64 > > [ ... ] > > Why in the world are /dev/null and /dev/zero optional? /dev/[k]mem > and /dev/io I can accept for those with uber-high security paranoia, but I > can't think of any good reason to have a kernel without /dev/null > and /dev/zero. To me it seems that this creates way more foot shooting > potential than benefit. It's one thing to have device drivers for hardware > that may or may not be present optional, but /dev/null and /dev/zero do not > fall into that case. OTOH, if someone wants to build mega-tight kernel image with everything possible taken out by modules, modularizing /dev/null and /dev/zero might make some sence. We already have /dev/random as a module anyways. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040803021718.GA5460>