*BSD News Article 12964


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!terra.stack.urc.tue.nl!tricky.wft.stack.urc.tue.nl!usenet
From: michael@wft.stack.urc.tue.nl (Michael Brouwer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: Some ideas on the driver interface (New idea!)
Message-ID: <1o9l9u$nn@tricky.wft.stack.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 18 Mar 93 11:09:50 GMT
References: <1993Mar17.122612.5929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar.wft.stack.urc.tue.nl

In article <1993Mar17.122612.5929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> weingart@inf.ethz.ch  
(Tobias Weingartner) writes:
> There.  Simple no?  Instead of making mount(2) take a special file,
> make it take a string representing the device.  The "dev" device would
> be mounted on /dev, and emulate like it was a real /dev.  This way
> only the devices that were configured into the kernel would even
> need to show up in "dev".

This is a really nice idea, but you'll have to think of a way to implement  
things like `chgrp uucp /dev/com01'; `chmod 660 /dev/com01', or do you suggest  
rebuilding the kernel to modify `/dev' protection?

Michael