I cannot really comment on the devfs(4) design issues, and quite frankly it hasn't bothered my thus far. Just another little quirk you get to remember.
On Sat, 10.01.2009 at 04:20:58 -0800, [email protected] wrote: > That the code faithfully adheres to the design does not guarantee > that the design is flawless. IMO it violates POLA, if not POSIX, > for open(2) to succeed when applied to a name which, according to > readdir(2), does not exist; and it is suboptimal to have "stealth" > drivers whose availability for use cannot be discovered by examining > /dev. You forgot directories with --x permissions. You can open many files inside them, but readdir(2) will get you nowhere. So this is a poor standard by which to judge devfs(4) device cloning. Cheers, Ulrich Spoerlein -- It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
