Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 13:00:45 -0800 (PST) From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: scrappy@ki.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DEVFS vs "regular /dev" Message-ID: <199603202100.NAA17319@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199603201933.MAA27577@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Mar 20, 96 12:33:42 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
all good but one question..... > > > Just curious, but what is the advantage (and disadvantage, if any?) > > of using devfs vs "regular /dev"? My first thought would be that its > > memory based instead of file system based, giving better performance, but > > that's just a guess. > [.... tons of reasons ] > > This assumes that the file system abstractions currently in place > change as well, since the /dev FS can't be mounted *after* the / FS > has been mounted as an inferior FS -- why not? you don't need a mounted /dev to mount root. that's done specially. > the /dev has to be there as > an overlay mount (translucent FS), and that means FS changes to allow > translucence and to divorce volume mappings from the need for a mount > point (basically, a shadow / and /dev on which the devfs /dev is mounted > and the real / is mounted over top of the shadow /). I think that's not needed julian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603202100.NAA17319>