Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:35:23 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Terry Lambert <>
To: (Dag-Erling Smorgrav)
Cc: (Terry Lambert), (Poul-Henning Kamp),,
Subject:   Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <> from "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" at Apr 04, 2000 05:54:28 PM

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> Terry Lambert <> writes:
> > > > In message <>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
> > > > > Anyway, since /dev/std* never change, how about having fdesc *only*
> > > > > handle the /dev/fd/* stuff, so you can (non-union) mount it on /dev/fd
> > > > > and let /dev/std* be either symlinks to /dev/fd/[012] or plain old
> > > > > static device nodes like they're now?
> > > > Symlinks have my vote.
> > > The downside is they'll be broken if fdesc isn't mounted...
> > The other downside is that, unlike devfs contents, they'll get
> > just as stale just as fast as /dev gets out of date with the
> > currently running kernel and/or MAKEDEV.
> You expect the major/minor numbers for std{in,out,err} to change in
> the foreseeable future?


I expect the targets of symbolic links to move out from under them,
unless someone (like /dev/MAKEDEV) accepts responsibility for
keeping them up to date, form this day forward, for all eternity.

I expect /dev/std* to eventually be recognized as "not useful" and
find its butt deprecated in favor of "/dev/fd{0-2}".

					Terry Lambert
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>