Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:16:31 -0800 (PST) From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, scrappy@ki.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DEVFS vs "regular /dev" Message-ID: <199603212016.MAA19785@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199603211313.FAA05246@Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 21, 96 05:13:54 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
>
>
> >> >> > This assumes that the file system abstractions currently in place
> >> >> > change as well, since the /dev FS can't be mounted *after* the / FS
> >> >> > has been mounted as an inferior FS --
> >> >> why not?
> >> >> you don't need a mounted /dev to mount root.
> >> >> that's done specially.
> >> >
> >> >So you don't need a mounted root to have a mounted /dev, of course!
> >>
> >> That's silly. The root filesystem is mounted long before /dev would be,
> >
> >Not that long before. /sbin/init will have to mount it to get in touch
> >with /dev/console, /dev/null and ...
>
> No, it will be mounted in the kernel.
>From within the kernel's point of view, the devfs is always available
I could easily add a function that would 'open' a device by name
even if the devfs is not mounted..
e.g.
error = deviceopen("console",O_RDONLY,0,&vnpointer);
if (error)
{
printf(" failed to open /dev/console, errno = %d",error);
}
maybe even a version that given a proc struct, will open it on behalf
of that process..
>
> -DG
>
> David Greenman
> Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603212016.MAA19785>