> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 12:09:53PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:55:11PM +0100, James Youngman wrote: > > > > > So what did you use instead? I have never had trouble with using > > > > > "eth0" or "/dev/eth0" before, so I didn't check if such a file > > > > > existed. A network interface is a device which I expect to be > > > > > represented under /dev. > > > > > > > > Not so, at least on Linux. > > > > On 03.06.09 10:51, lee wrote: > > > Well, all devices are supposed to be available under /dev. > > > > Who told you that? I have never heard of this and I work with linux since > > 1997...
On 04.06.09 11:06, lee wrote: > I've read that a long time ago. Who told you otherwise? Was that about linux? I haven't remember there was anything like that on linux (maybe some distros have/had patch?). I remember solaris having on-fs devices for network _drivers_, but not for interfaces, e.g. /dev/le for le*, > > > > For example, you cannot use open(2) or rename(2) on eth0. > > > > > > It wouldn't make much sense if you could, would it? > > > > That's just it. There's no reason to work with them as with files, so > > there's no reason to have them on filesystem. > > They are devices, and you need to be able to specify them. There's no > reason not to represent them. There's no reason to specify and represent them as files. Programs accessing network devices use different syscalls than those accessing files. as I said, I don't see reason why they should be placed on filesystem and I don't remember that they were... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
