Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:51:34 -0600
From:      Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com>
To:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev
Message-ID:  <20000328155134.P18325@holly.calldei.com>
In-Reply-To: <xzpsnxbxor2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
References:  <20000317230632.I24374@holly.calldei.com> <xzpsnxbxor2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, March 28, 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> I tried this and got some weird problems - some programs seemed to
> have trouble accessing other device nodes in /dev (non-fdesc ones).
> Not much of an error report, I know, but it's been a rough week and I
> didn't bother to write anything down. The problems went away when I
> unmounted the fdesc file system.

   I'm working on fdesc now.  It's riddled with bugs at this
point.

> Anyway, since /dev/std* never change, how about having fdesc *only*
> handle the /dev/fd/* stuff, so you can (non-union) mount it on /dev/fd
> and let /dev/std* be either symlinks to /dev/fd/[012] or plain old
> static device nodes like they're now?

   I agree with symlinks as well.  This would make the fdesc code
_considerably_ simpler and a lot more elegant than it is now,
since it would not need to place anything (tty, stderr, stdin,
stdout) in /dev.

-- 
|Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com>
|My Go this  amn keyboar  oesn't have any  's.
`---------------------------------------------




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000328155134.P18325>