Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:09:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Beattie <beattie@aracnet.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, Wayne Cuddy <wayne@crb-web.com>, FreeBSD Hackers List <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: what is devfs? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9909201801520.19794-100000@shell2.aracnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990920163316.6478C-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > While I sharply disagree, with your assertion, I also point out that if > you make such a all-singing-all-dancing devfsd, then you might as well get > rid of devfs entirely, and just have devfsd make the devices using normal > mknod commands. > Since I did not follow the original discussion, maybe this idea has been discussed and discarded, but what about a "translucent" like deal. Basically yu would mount the devfs on top of an existing directrory or filesystem. The underlying contents would "show through" by some set of rules. One rule would be that if a device node existed in the devfs and the real fs, and the device node in the real fs was for the "fake/null whatever you want to call it device", the resulting device node would have the major/minor fron the devfs and the owner/group/permissions from the real fs underneath. Any change to the node would affect the real fs underneath. I could probably expand on this futher if anybody is interested. Brian Beattie | The only problem with beattie@aracnet.com | winning the rat race ... www.aracnet.com/~beattie | in the end you're still a rat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.9909201801520.19794-100000>