Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:37:51 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: mknod implementation? any idea when it will occur? Message-ID: <20030225013751.GB24688@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224130818.01dae398@pop3.cris.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030224134817.0299ae90@pop3.cris.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224134817.0299ae90@pop3.cris.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:52:15PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: >Mknod itself is scarcely the issue, is it? Device node file system >entries are just a way of making contact in user-land (or is it >file-system-land?) with "kernel" software entities such as drivers or >special file types. > >The real issue is getting the implementation of those special kernel >software entities. > >That certainly goes for a loopback device or named pipes, a random >number generator (at least one of which already exists, of course) and >so on. > >Does Cygwin have a loopback block device? No. >Does it have named pipes? Named pipes should be part of 1.3.22. As Randall correctly points out, the existence of the mknod command has no bearing on the existence of functionality like a loopback device. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/