From owner-freebsd-current Sun May 13 22: 1:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from relay.butya.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [212.154.129.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AD337B424; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:01:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bp@butya.kz) Received: by relay.butya.kz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8950E28BA5; Mon, 14 May 2001 12:01:34 +0700 (ALMST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.butya.kz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC7828B61; Mon, 14 May 2001 12:01:34 +0700 (ALMST) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:01:34 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Mandatory DEVFS (was cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options ...) In-Reply-To: <200105132052.f4DKqfo39754@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 13 May 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Log: > Convert DEVFS from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" option. > > If for some reason DEVFS is undesired, the "NODEVFS" option is > needed now. Right step. > Pending any significant issues, DEVFS will be made mandatory in > -current on july 1st so that we can start reaping the full > benefits of having it. I'm not sure if this move in the right direction. Current devfs implementation is weak compared to the static device entries in the /dev. And sometimes it is better to have a precreated device nodes in the ufs filesystem. Having dual interface is not all that hard if you'll spend enough time on design. -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message