mknod, devfs and FreeBSD
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Jan 29 14:20:41 UTC 2007
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote:
> On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> >I not understand this no sentence :)
> Sorry, I didn't read what I typed. I meant to type "Was the effect of this
> considered at all?"
Yes it was. The benefits of dynamic devices were considered to
outweight the downsides of having to mount a devfs instance.
> What reasons, other than cosmetic, do you have for not wanting to do
> Well, I am sure you would agree it is simpler to mknod for a small subset of
> /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing set
> up which works perfectly as it is.
Actually I disagree. Once you write the simple devfs ruleset it is a
single command to instantiate a new /dev. You don't have to worry
about making each individual device node N times and possibly making a
mistake. Of course you probably have a script to do this now, but
that just means you need to adjust your script as part of your
> It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I take
> your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't
To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20070129/399e483a/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions