Subject: Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-kern
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
> of.

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
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B