From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:07:27 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1231045647.11463.250.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <1231022424.11463.231.camel@goose.sun.com> <7cefbad7e6d7bd1c7fe0eb4d867631f5@quanstro.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices Topicbox-Message-UUID: 772e1856-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 15:15 -0800, Russ Cox wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 2:57 PM, 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. > > i don't see why that's likely. > maybe those were simply judged to be the safe set of devices. Ok, here's a practical question: given how little use these exceptions have in existing applications, wouldn't removing them be worth it? Thanks, Roman. P.S. I can submit a patch for kernel and applications alike... ;-)