Re: What happened to network devices?
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 12:09:53PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:55:11PM +0100, James Youngman wrote:
> > > > > So what did you use instead? I have never had trouble with using
> > > > > "eth0" or "/dev/eth0" before, so I didn't check if such a file
> > > > > existed. A network interface is a device which I expect to be
> > > > > represented under /dev.
> > > >
> > > > Not so, at least on Linux.
> >
> > On 03.06.09 10:51, lee wrote:
> > > Well, all devices are supposed to be available under /dev.
> >
> > Who told you that? I have never heard of this and I work with linux since
> > 1997...
On 04.06.09 11:06, lee wrote:
> I've read that a long time ago. Who told you otherwise?
Was that about linux? I haven't remember there was anything like that on
linux (maybe some distros have/had patch?). I remember solaris having on-fs
devices for network _drivers_, but not for interfaces, e.g. /dev/le for le*,
> > > > For example, you cannot use open(2) or rename(2) on eth0.
> > >
> > > It wouldn't make much sense if you could, would it?
> >
> > That's just it. There's no reason to work with them as with files, so
> > there's no reason to have them on filesystem.
>
> They are devices, and you need to be able to specify them. There's no
> reason not to represent them.
There's no reason to specify and represent them as files. Programs accessing
network devices use different syscalls than those accessing files.
as I said, I don't see reason why they should be placed on filesystem and I
don't remember that they were...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them
Reply to: