Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5/6/7 kernel emulator for NetBSD 2.x
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@Pescadero.dsg.stanford.edu>
Date: 10/26/2005 11:15:54
In message <F1E1A773-FE03-4E20-906D-601FC522D750@shagadelic.org>Jason Thorpe writes
>On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>> In the past, we (NetBSD folks) have talked about a devfs. One issue
>> has come up (I'll be honest, I've raised it a lot)
And me, too. I suspect Thor Lancelot Simon and a few others are in the
>> is a desire to
>> permission changes across boots, and to tie devices (when possible)
>> to a
>> device-specific attribute rather than a probe order.
>The permission thing is solvable using scripts that can fix up the
>perms after mount.
Huh?? But for those of us like Bill and Thor, that doesn't even come
clsoe to a solution. Not when you need to build, and freeze, a
pre-defined set of device-node and permissions. When that's what you
really want, *no* devfs is a workable subsitute for persistent
filesystem state. (think: securelevel 2...)
>The "nodes named after attributes" thing is interesting... and
>largely something I'm concerned about with wedges, although in that
>case, it's pretty easy to handle from within wedges itself.
>> Does FreeBSD's devfs support locators and persistent information? Are
>> there plans to support something like that, if not?
>FreeBSD's devfs does not, to my knowledge, include the things that
>you have mentioned above.
>FWIW, I think a devfs based on our new tmpfs would be better for NetBSD.
Maybe so, but how can we support a "no devfs allowed here" for those
who depend on the decades-old existinge semantics?