Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:40:53 -0800 (PST)
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
To:        jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Cc:        terry@lambert.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION
Message-ID:  <199602092240.OAA00618@ref.tfs.com>
In-Reply-To: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 9, 96 02:21:50 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 
> > I think that *not* requiring the implementation of the persistance
> > facility (think netbooting, again) prior to deployment of a mandatory
> > devfs is a *major* incentive to cause the feature to be added by the
> > people who feel they need it.  The lag on the developement of the
> > ability to save "boot -c" data after "boot -c" was implemented was not
> > an inherently bad thing.
> 
> But -c was never a critical part of the system, and certainly not
> *mandatory*.  I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't think that devfs should ever be *mandatory* until the current
> semantics, which are known even if not necessarily loved by a
> generation of UNIX hackers, are preserved.  Let's make it optional,
> sure, but mandatory?  In its proposed form?  You've got to be
> kidding.
> 
> 					Jordan
> 

I plan on it being default, though not mandatory at this time, however I think
that it duplicates the known semantics enough to make it mandatory.
I think that the persistance factor is a security issue and can be dealt with
by the use of a special tool to handle the issue.
As I said, it's possible that syslog might be used for 
loging these changes, however I think that the persistance argument is
in fact a red herring. Devices are not a property of a filesystem and have
no purpose being  in such. Devices are a property of the particular
hardware/System and puting devices in the filesystem is a semantically
broken concept. DMR once said that it was done that way because they couldn't
afford the memory to impliment a flexible dynamic method on a pdp11.

What does plan 9 do?




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602092240.OAA00618>