Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:58:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, "Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen" <ncbp@bank-pedersen.dk>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Subject: Re: how's vinum these days with DEVFS (second part) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103111257150.29879-100000@zeppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103111253310.29879-100000@zeppo.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think I'm assuming that DEVFS will become standard. I really see it working very very well and solving lots of problems. I have yet to really find cases where it really *can't* work (modulo broken drivers). > > > Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> writes: > > > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you > > > use vinum. > > > > Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it. > > Har har har har har............ > > Almost a Catch-22... "We have to do really wierd things so vinum will work > equally well without devfs as with it... so we can, then,.... remove all the > wierd things we did to make vinum work equally well without devfs as with > it"... > > I think what you really meant to say was "No, we won't require devfs". > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" 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.4.21.0103111257150.29879-100000>