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