Subject: Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 11/13/2004 03:51:54
>>> 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.
(Actually, I disagree with the kernel mounting it. init mounting it
would bother me less, though still a little.)
Of course, how much my opinion matters is..debatable. :)
>> [...pathnames in kernel...] (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
Good to hear - I still think having the kernel mounting devfs would be
a mistake, though, which was my main point. (Now to go digging to find
out what's behind my cronjob not keeping my -current tree updated....)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B