Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:03:30 -0400 From: Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Destroying and remaking device nodes Message-ID: <3B01DFF2.87D3649@bellatlantic.net> References: <bright@wintelcom.net> <200105142354.f4ENs5514952@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20010514171210.A66354@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:54:04AM +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > > > * Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> [010514 07:08] wrote: > > > > > > > > I intended to ignore the major and minor arguments in mknod(2), simply > > > > treating it as a request to re-create the named node. > > > > > > It sounds nice, however that's a major POLA violation, no? > > > > I agree. I think mknod should either do as asked or fail, not do > > what the developer thinks the user should have asked. > > The problem is, how do you know the major/minor number of the device, > if you haven't installed MAKEDEV (which is about the only reference I > know of apart from the source)? How about making the major and minor arguments optional ? When ran on devfs, mknod would complain and fail if it was given explicit major/minor and create the file if not given. Whan ran on a common filesystem it would work the old way. -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B01DFF2.87D3649>