Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:27:49 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Mario Goebbels <mariog@tomservo.cc>, <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: About GEOM... Message-ID: <20020704210304.Y21619-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20020704092253.GW75946@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I > think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs > is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more > logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain > your objections. This has been discussed before. Basically, devfs creates work by moving problems around without any significant benefits. I expect control of devfs device visibility and persistence of devfs device attributes would end up mostly in a utility (devd?). But once you have such a utility, you don't need devfs (or MAKEDEV). Bruce 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?20020704210304.Y21619-100000>