Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:37:20 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device driver open semantics... Message-ID: <Mutt.19970201143720.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <3050.854800300@critter.dk.tfs.com>; from Poul-Henning Kamp on Feb 1, 1997 13:31:40 %2B0100 References: <3050.854800300@critter.dk.tfs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I realize that changing this behaviour in general would > probably surprise most if not all of our device-drivers, > So we're probably talking about a per-driver flag or possibly > a different open/close entry point in the [cb]devsw structure. This would at least break with the tradition of any Unix system i know of. Is there any historian among us who knows why this tradition started the way it is? So it would violate the principle of least surprise. A separate halfclose() entry might be less surprising... (or notify_close). It would make some drivers indeed more happy. I remember the dreaded /dev/console problems that also could have been solved better if the driver got notified about each close. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970201143720.j>