Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:47:17 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c src/sys/alpha/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/include memdev.h src/sys/amd64/amd64 io.c mem.c src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES src/sys/amd64/include iodev.h memdev.h src/sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 ... Message-ID: <200408021847.17496.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040802175544.0211d312@localhost> References: <200408011140.i71BesOt070889@repoman.freebsd.org> <200408021600.00339.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040802175544.0211d312@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 02 August 2004 05:55 pm, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:00:00 -0400 > > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On Sunday 01 August 2004 07:40 am, Mark Murray wrote: > > > markm 2004-08-01 11:40:54 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > sys/alpha/alpha mem.c > > > sys/alpha/conf GENERIC > > > sys/amd64/amd64 mem.c > > > sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES > > > sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 > > > files.i386 files.ia64 files.pc98 > > > files.sparc64 > > > [ ... ] > > > > Why in the world are /dev/null and /dev/zero optional? /dev/[k]mem > > and /dev/io I can accept for those with uber-high security paranoia, but > > I can't think of any good reason to have a kernel without /dev/null and > > /dev/zero. To me it seems that this creates way more foot shooting > > potential than benefit. It's one thing to have device drivers for > > hardware that may or may not be present optional, but /dev/null and > > /dev/zero do not fall into that case. > > Foot shooting potential? Please, we have other "KEEP THIS" listed > for COMPAT_43, why not the same here? Like: > > device null KEEP THIS! > device zero KEEP THIS TOO! How about not having optional things being optional? Mark pointed out npx as an example in a side conversation and for what its worth, device npx should just be made standard (i.e. required) on i386 as it is on amd64 rather than be a foot-shooting implement. The reason for it having a device line at all probably goes back to the older configuration mechanism of <= 4.x where a device had to have a line to show up as an actual device rather than being instantiated by hints or driver identify routines. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408021847.17496.jhb>