Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [2] I simply cannot see us kldload'ing stuff in response to
> ls -l /dev/watchthis
In fact, I think a lot of people would get very angry if we did this,
as it might turn ls(1) into panic(1).
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T
Takanori Watanabe wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> >DEVFS:
> > 3. major/minors will be dynamically assigned.
>
> So we will need file to list node id list in printf(9) format,
> instead of /sys/conf/majors.
No. The wired relationship must go away, per
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Takanori Watanabe writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>>DEVFS:
>
>> 3. major/minors will be dynamically assigned.
>
>So we will need file to list node id list in printf(9) format,
>instead of /sys/conf/majors.
I am not sure abou
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>DEVFS:
> 3. major/minors will be dynamically assigned.
So we will need file to list node id list in printf(9) format,
instead of /sys/conf/majors.
And more better if we generate device name #define or array of
string from the fil
>You can still make device nodes so that the disk can be exported,
>but as, in -current the major and minor number will not exist
...Or use softlinks, perhaps? I can't seem to read mknod(8) disk device
nodes anymore in -current.
Andrew Lankford
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Ok here are some thought about devfs
>
> 1/ devices are coming and going and becoming more portable
> 2/ disk partitioning schemes are also multiplying
> 3/ devices such as usb or bluetooth nets can be configured in arbitray ways
> 4/ there are more than 256 types of de
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Julian Elischer writes
:
>In fact majors and minors, being dynamic, could change from boot to boot.
And just to calm down anybody who's getting nervous now, this is not
happening quite yet :-)
After the next branch of -current, be it before/after 5.0-R or
5.1-R, a
Ok here are some thought about devfs
1/ devices are coming and going and becoming more portable
2/ disk partitioning schemes are also multiplying
3/ devices such as usb or bluetooth nets can be configured in arbitray ways
4/ there are more than 256 types of device in the world.
With these in mind
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:14:09PM -0600, Anti wrote:
> and if you must? dual boot 4.7 here so was able to create the
> devices easy enough from there and all is well, but i'd like to do
> it on some other boxes where this isn't an option...
Perhaps you could explain why it's not an option.
Kris
and if you must? dual boot 4.7 here so was able to create the devices easy enough from
there and all is well, but i'd like to do it on some other boxes where this isn't an
option...
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:14:08 +0100
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anti writes:
>
>how are you supposed to get rid of devfs?
You're not.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can ade
how are you supposed to get rid of devfs? building a kernel without it won't boot
since there are no devices... shouldn't there be a ./MAKEDEV all or something
underneath the devfs mount so you can boot without it? or am i missing something?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
12 matches
Mail list logo
