Subject: Re: representation of persistent device status, was Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs...
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@NetBSD.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <email@example.com>
Date: 11/19/2004 14:56:05
In message <20041119224802.GA11093@netbsd.org>, Bill Studenmund writes:
>Well, the main goal for devfs is to make major and minor numbers be
>transient. So there's no way that old-style nodes in the fs will work.
To return for awhile to the question which prompted the ptyfs -> devfs
topic switch, and answer your question of a week or so back:
I know of certain applications where old-style nodes in the fs is an
absolute, non-negotiable requirement, and for which the proposed devfs
is an absolute non-starter.
Are you saying that for such applications, we should use another OS?
That's, er ... well, not what I was hoping ot hear.