Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:40:18 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: devfs persistence Message-ID: <19980214024018.55619@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199802140018.QAA05385@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 04:18:58PM -0800 References: <3896.887413886@critter.freebsd.dk> <199802140018.QAA05385@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 04:18:58PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > So we want the same thing. As I said, we are arguing implememtation. > > Count the lines, and the breaks in paradigm, between what you suggest I > want and what you want. Your desire is for a more complicated, > inconsistent, non-extensible technique. That's Bad. OK, I we all agree that there is a need for persistence for some cases. Now, _including this requirement_, wouldn't it still feel good to actually get DEVFS integrated and usable as the default _now_? People that need persistence can either disable devfs until persistence is implemented, or use phk's hack for the time being. We'll take the hit for the problems that might be with bad device definitions now, but that'll be fairly easy to sort out. Devfs without persistence is usable for 90% of the cases; and it is IMHO a large step forward for those 90%. Eivind. 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?19980214024018.55619>