Subject: Re: TTY virtualization driver
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 01/24/2002 12:25:52
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Greywolf wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> # [ On Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 08:41:35 (+0100), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ]
> # > for me it's easier "i connected to my second cyclades card port 17, so i
> # > need to use /dev/ttyZ1017"
> # The world of systems supported by NetBSD is much wider and more varied
> # than your view of it seems to be.
> At least hitherto it has lived in a world in which it could create its
> own sanity. Dynamic (re)assignment on new hardware violates the
> PoLS in a large way, especially for terminal connections. "Mmmmyeah,
> I think I'll run the getty out the line that's hardwired to the other
> system's console today."
In general, I agree with you. I think if we had dynamic tty assignment for
all (real) tty's, it'd be a real mess.
The one place I can see it'd make sense though is for the drivers which
motivated eeh in the first place. Sun changed the serial chips (and thus
the drivers we attach) for system serial ports over time. As I understand
it, there will be only one of the three present. So for that case, some
sort of virtualization make sense. :-)