Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:36:51 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fdescfs broken? Message-ID: <6578.1047652611@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:32:14 %2B0100." <20030314143213.GH83455@cicely9.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030314143213.GH83455@cicely9.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: >On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:15:49PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20030314141250.GG83455@cicely9.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: >> >The /dev/fd content looks strange: >> >[160]cicely9# ls -al /dev/fd/ >> >total 33 >> >dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Mar 6 16:59 . >> >dr-xr-xr-x 5 root wheel 512 Mar 6 17:00 .. >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 0 >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 1 >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 2 >> >d-w------- 1 root wheel 512 Feb 28 15:20 3 >> >d--------- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 6 16:59 4 >> >> What is strange about it ? > >After carefully rethinking - nothing. That's why I'm against fdescfs and /dev/fd in principle: They are neither intuitive nor logical. >I'd expected to see devnodes like we have without fdescfs and was >surprised by the directories. >I never used fdescfs before and needed /dev/fd/3 for a shell script. >The script does not work with fdescfs, but of course this could be >for a completly different reason. You cannot access /dev/fd/3 until file desc #3 is actually open so the order of arguments (and bugs in the shell) is important. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. 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?6578.1047652611>