Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:36:13 +0300 From: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/devfs devfs_rule.c Message-ID: <20040122083613.GA1613@mobile.acsolutions.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122082056.04321990@imap.sfu.ca> References: <200401211643.i0LGhT43093728@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040122074937.GB1013@mobile.acsolutions.com> <6.0.1.1.1.20040122082056.04321990@imap.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:28:41AM +0000, Colin Percival wrote: > At 07:49 22/01/2004, Mike Makonnen wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:43:29AM -0800, Colin Percival wrote: > >> Allow devfs path rules to work on directories. Without this fix, > >> devfs rule add path fd unhide > >> is a no-op, while it should unhide the fd subdirectory. > > > >Does this affect /etc/defaults/devfs.rules? > > No, but we might want to change devfs.rules. > > >I am assuming that the 'add hide' in the first ruleset will now also > >hide /dev/fd (where it previously didn't). > > The 'add hide' was always hiding /dev/fd. It just wasn't possible > to unhide it without unhiding everything. (devfs_rule_matchpath is > only called if the rule specifies a path; prior to this fix, it would > always return "no, this doesn't match" when applied to a directory.) > > >In that case will the > >'add path fd/* unhide' in a later rule unhide the fd/ directory? Does > >it need a separate 'add fd unhide'? > > Given that 'add path fd/* unhide' currently unhides entries within > a hidden directory, it would probably makes sense to add a separate > 'add path fd unhide'. :) Please do so then. Thanks. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc mtm@identd.net | Fingerprint: 00E8 61BC 0D75 7FFB E4D3 6BF1 B239 D010 3215 D418 mtm@FreeBSD.Org| FreeBSD - Unleash the Daemon !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040122083613.GA1613>