From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 23 21:32:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22826 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:32:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22820 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23173; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199806240432.VAA23173@kithrup.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: block devices to disappear! In-Reply-To: References: <199806240130.SAA06590@kithrup.com> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article you write: >Whoa, I'm confused now. Sean, you appear to be saying that by removing >block devices from FreeBSD, it is no longer possible to do direct, >un-cached (i.e. raw) accesses. Actually, I should have followed up myself - a big question is: will all of the benefits of block devices still be present? If so, fine. If not, this should be more carefully thought out. I admit that the benefits are fairly small -- but there are some advantages of block devices over character devices. Ideally, really, with DEVFS, there are only special files, not "block special" or "character special" files. (Better people than I have debated the merits of having them at all, far more completely than I am willing or able to, so I won't bother ;).) I am not automatically opposed to this change... but I do question its worth. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message