Symlinks under /proc

Christopher Faylor
Mon Jan 31 20:11:00 GMT 2005

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:04:57PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 31 12:43, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> D'oh!  After all this thought process, I looked on Linux, and that's
>> *exactly* how /dev/std* are implemented there.  On the one hand, it shows
>> that my brain still works (surprisingly).  On the other, it proves yet
>> again that a few months in the laboratory can usually save a few hours in
>> the library.
>> 	Igor (properly ashamed)
>> P.S. Can those symlinks be added via the same mechanism as the /proc/self
>> symlink, or should base-files do it?
>I would prefer something in base-files.  The problem with adding a
>virtual file system handler for /dev is that it's not a R/O FS as /proc.
>If we add a R/O /dev handler, nobody would be able to add own symlinks
>like `ln -s /dev/nst0 /dev/tape'.
>On the same line, does base-files already create empty /dev and /proc
>directories?  No, apparently not.  Adding these empty directories would
>helps a lot for file completion.

Have we reached the point yet where we can just get rid of special /dev
handling entirely?  Maybe we could just add /dev population to setup.exe
or even have cygwin1.dll itself run a program if it detects an unpopulated
/dev, sort of like how udev is handled in linux now.

My only reservation with doing things this way is that we'd be making
cygwin perform a disk lookup every time someone wanted to get to open


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list