Subject: Re: /dev/cuaXX (Was: Formal getty replacement yet?)
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/20/1994 13:15:07
Greg A. Woods says:
> I agree, if it works, having separate dial-in/dial-out devices, with all
> the access control in the driver, is handy.
> However most every implementation I've used has some problems with
> permitting multiple open()s on such devices, since the driver writer
> often gets the semantics wrong.
The Sun implementation seems worked just fine, and handles the
semantics very well. I've used this for at least six years without any
> And finally, as I've said all along, the lock state is maintained in the
> kernel, and the user has little option but a re-boot if anything goes
Many buggy things have that property -- the solution is just to make
the implementation non-buggy.
> BTW, I think having multiple tape/floppy devices for different densities
> is an icky hack too