Subject: Re: Is fdesc useful?
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/02/2002 10:07:26
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, der Mouse wrote:
: > Would anyone miss fdescfs if it [were] gone?
: I would, for what that may be worth. I consider it a significantly
: more elegant way to support /dev/fd than tons of special devices,
We don't yet have some real concept of a fully dynamic /dev (for all the
plethora of reasons we've mentioned before), but fdescfs is an important
step towards that.
: And aesthetically, I've never liked the kludge of a special device driver
: whose open routine arranges to provoke hacks in high kernel to do dups
Unavoidable with the current arrangement, but some proposals for dynamic
/dev have provided possibilities that this could be elided into the higher
level kernel code rather than the low level device drivers. (Similar logic
is needed for a ptmx PTY multiplexer device.)
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> * Wasabi & NetBSD: Run with it.
-- CDs, Integration, Embedding, Support -- http://www.wasabisystems.com/