Subject: Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 11/13/2004 08:38:27
In article <200411130414.XAA24980@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>,
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>> I also think that, if/when we do get a devfs, it should be mounted
>> automatically by either the kernel or init, so that you don't have to
>> mess about with mounting it when e.g. booting single-user.
>I strongly disagree. The kernel currently has too many pathnames wired
>into it already; I think it would be an _extremely_ bad idea for it to
>acquire any more hardwired pathnames. (init is tolerable, especially
>given the fragility of the alternatives - but I prefer my way for init.
>I dislike /emul. I *really* dislike TTY_TEMPLATE, or more precisely
>the misdesign that calls for it.)
TTY_TEMPLATE is a thing of the past. Only COMPAT_BSDPTY needs it, and
it is not required. It was one of the things I wanted to get rid of.