Basically I'm not working on devfs at the moment since the bit that made it workable was ripped out with extreme prejudice by someone. I'm still absolutly convinced that a dynamic device registration and export framework is required in the long run, but I'm not fussed if it's based on the current devfs or an successor.
I'd feel a bit happier about spending more time on it If I had any thought that the result would not be ripped out by the throat as soon as it works again, by a maniac that doesn't understand that it's a working subsystem (it was fully working at the time it was vandaliased but the nice fellow didn't even try it, and I got no warning except the commit message). There were two known problems that were based in other parts of the code (mfs and some vfs/module stuff) And the install software couldn't install with it. If PHK is working an a framework to make this easier, I'd love to get a white-paper on the topic because it's all unknown stuff at the moment. To get it going, you basically need to reverse the backout commits done by SOS a year ago. DEVSF itself works, but it needs a different disk subsystem to be able to represent dynamic disk partitions properly. julian On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Nick Hibma wrote: > > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not? > > > > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure > > it should be based on in the kernel. > > Anymore information available on where you are with this? > > Cheers, > > Nick > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
