Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:16:31 -0800 (PST) From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, scrappy@ki.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DEVFS vs "regular /dev" Message-ID: <199603212016.MAA19785@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199603211313.FAA05246@Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 21, 96 05:13:54 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > >> >> > This assumes that the file system abstractions currently in place > >> >> > change as well, since the /dev FS can't be mounted *after* the / FS > >> >> > has been mounted as an inferior FS -- > >> >> why not? > >> >> you don't need a mounted /dev to mount root. > >> >> that's done specially. > >> > > >> >So you don't need a mounted root to have a mounted /dev, of course! > >> > >> That's silly. The root filesystem is mounted long before /dev would be, > > > >Not that long before. /sbin/init will have to mount it to get in touch > >with /dev/console, /dev/null and ... > > No, it will be mounted in the kernel. >From within the kernel's point of view, the devfs is always available I could easily add a function that would 'open' a device by name even if the devfs is not mounted.. e.g. error = deviceopen("console",O_RDONLY,0,&vnpointer); if (error) { printf(" failed to open /dev/console, errno = %d",error); } maybe even a version that given a proc struct, will open it on behalf of that process.. > > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603212016.MAA19785>