Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 01:53:19 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I see one major problem with DEVFS... Message-ID: <19980531015319.33329@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980530154859.10304C-100000@current1.whistle.com>; from Julian Elischer on Sat, May 30, 1998 at 03:53:10PM -0700 References: <1416.896556860@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.BSF.3.95.980530154859.10304C-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 03:53:10PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Julian, > > > > Just to get peace over the land again, I think you should implement > > it so that one can mknod a device again, but discard the dev_t, > > and use whatever DEVFS knows (better). > > I agree with this > it's not a bad idea > > If the device being made does not exist then the master directory > corresponding with that the mknod is in is scanned for that name. If you want to be really nice, I'd say implement a reverse mapping from the major/minor numbers for the time being. We will (of course) get rid of this later, but it would allow an almost completely smooth transition to DEVFS. Eivind. 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?19980531015319.33329>