From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat,  3 Jan 2009 21:05:14 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <7cefbad7e6d7bd1c7fe0eb4d867631f5@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1231045514.11463.247.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <7cefbad7e6d7bd1c7fe0eb4d867631f5@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7728e9b2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 17:57 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > And finally, I'd say having these exceptions is a mistake. Unless,
> > there's a really good reason, they break the paradigm of RFNOMNT
> > quite needlessly without even a hint of a benefit.
>
> so, it's likely that RFNOMNT was added and to avoid
> breaking too many things, a few exceptions were added
> with the intention of fixing and removing them.
>
> why don't you submit a patch to rfork(2)?

You mean the man page, or the system call? ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.