Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 23:52:38 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <199805310652.XAA09881@antipodes.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 May 1998 03:10:25 EDT." <199805310710.DAA18304@rtfm.ziplink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mike Smith once stated: > > => May be this should be the semantics of `rm' on the DEVFS? > => Removal of the driver, or telling it to stop driving a > => particular device? (If possible, otherwise, rm fails?) mknod > => (or, `touch'!!) can then be used to load the driver back (if > => possible). > > =Not useful. You want to poke a single entity (the driver) and > =have it remove all it's nodes, rather than have to guess at all > =the nodes everywhere that it might own and run around deleting > =them all. > > Not necessarily. By removing /dev/lpt1 I may be telling the > lpt driver to stop driving the second lport, but the lpt0 may > continue to work. As I said, it's not useful. You can't guarantee that there aren't other instances of the device that you haven't/can't remove. Sure, it's one possible interpretation - it's just not a good one. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805310652.XAA09881>