"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Yes. That's true. That's why the idea of devfsd is simple, but
> > implementing it well enough for people to be happy with it is much
> > much harder.
>
> I think a minimal feature set for the first rev would satisify 90% of
> those wanting persistence no? ie just tracking permissions and owners for
> everything, and restoring them to their previous state on startup. This
> would require that devfsd be started fairly early. Adding a tunable
> checkpoint interval would be fairly simple. Beyond that it would be a
> matter of what specific features the 'power users' wanted. This simple
> behavior would nearly exactly mimic the behavior of a normal filesystem
> based /dev.
Why not to create a simple 'devfs' device ? devfsd can sleep at
polling it and devfs device itself can provide hooks in the kernel to
register all important events and pass them to devfsd.
--
Boris Popov
http://www.butya.kz/~bp/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
