From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 2 19:30:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.inka.de (quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7712137B401 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from kemoauc.mips.inka.de (uucp@) by mail.inka.de with local-bsmtp id 14OtP6-0002ES-00; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:30:24 +0100 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by kemoauc.mips.inka.de (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f132cX374367 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:38:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from daemon) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: fdescfs oddities Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <95fqv8$289p$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <20010201162352.B351@nebula.cybercable.fr> <20010201143246.B632@holly.calldei.com> Originator: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chris Costello wrote: > I've done some work on fdescfs in -CURRENT a while back [...] While we are talking about fdesc(fs), how does it relate to devfs? I.e. will devfs make fdesc useless, or require it, or...? -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message