Subject: Re: Linux pseudo pty
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/15/2001 16:02:21
In some email I received from Todd Vierling, sie wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Greywolf wrote:
> : # : The ptmx emulation code could be ripped out of compat_svr4 and put into
> : # : compat/common with dependencies on either linux *or* svr4....
> : # :
> : # : no, it should become part of NetBSD proper. we *want* UNIX98 ptys.
> : Do we want the /dev/pts/.* garbage to replace the current naming scheme,
> : or would it be possible to have a cloner coexist with the current
> : /dev/tty.. scheme?
> It can coexist. Now, whether it should overlap the same device numberspace,
> I'm not so sure.
> Solaris, for instance, provides BSD-style (SunOS 4 compatibility) ptys named
> /dev/[pt]typ[0-9] and so forth, but they aren't in the same device
> numberspace, because the naming scheme is quite limited. In the case of
> /dev/pts having its own device space, you could have as many nodes as you
> want (or even a kernel fs similar to fdesc), without worrying about running
> out of letters.
FWIW, I don't think they should share the same numberspace (different
The Solaris approach (having both) has numerous benefits - backward
compatibility as well as separation of functionality which aids