From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 5 18:18:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B5137B401 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from out004.verizon.net (out004pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.142]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BF243E3B for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:18:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arlankfo@verizon.net) Received: from verizon.net ([138.88.140.17]) by out004.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP id <20021106021810.YEXF3491.out004.verizon.net@verizon.net>; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:18:10 -0600 To: current@freebsd.org, Dima Dorfman Subject: Re: What's the status of devfs(8)? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:19:10 GMT." <20021105201910.GD641@trit.org> From: "Andrew Lankford" Reply-To: "Andrew Lankford" Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:18:27 -0500 Message-Id: <20021106021810.YEXF3491.out004.verizon.net@verizon.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20021105201910.GD641@trit.org>, Dima Dorfman writes: > >That one can't modify ruleset 0 is documented copiously in the man >page, and all the examples are preceeded by "devfs ruleset 10" (see >the first sentence in the EXAMPLES section). Doh! >phk and I had a long discussion about this, and the conclusion was >that it is indeed useful, sort of like having a NULL pointer is >useful. I can go through my archives if you're interested in details. From a kernel programmer's point of view, maybe it could be the best idea since null pointers, though it's nice that reading/writing/enabling a null ruleset from userland doesn't make the kernel die horribly. Details like that would be good for a devfs_ruleset_API(9) (?) man page, but From the superuser's point of view, it's basically much ado about "nothing", seems to me. :) >Since this doesn't appear to be enough, perhaps you (or anyone, for that >matter) could suggest a better way to communicate this requirement? My vote would be a direct error message like "Must specify a default ruleset", or something closer to ipfw(8)'s behavior, like Mr. Nelson was saying. Andrew Lankford To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message