mknod, devfs and FreeBSD

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote:
> Kris,
> 
> 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
> >this?
> 
> 
> 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
migration strategy.

> 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
> pretty.

To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get
over :-)

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20070129/399e483a/attachment.pgp