Subject: dev_t vs. VOP_MKNOD()
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Charles M. Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/17/1998 05:33:35
So I noticed an interesting problem:
# mknod foo c 4095 1048575
# ls -l foo
crw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0, 0 Jan 17 05:25 foo
This is due to the special case for VNOVAL in ufs_mknod().
Technically, VNOVAL in any vattr field means `no value', so changing
this is really not correct.
What I wonder is why VOP_MKNOD() uses a vattr at all?! This seems