From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:15:26 -0800 From: "Russ Cox" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices In-Reply-To: <7cefbad7e6d7bd1c7fe0eb4d867631f5@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1231022424.11463.231.camel@goose.sun.com> <7cefbad7e6d7bd1c7fe0eb4d867631f5@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76fa92f6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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. russ