Subject: Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: Rui Paulo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/11/2004 11:11:45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:04:52 -0500
email@example.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> This is work in progress for a ptyfs implementation.
I didn't tested it yet, but thanks for doing this.
> 3. I wanted the old bsd ptys to co-exist with /dev/pts. For that when ptyfs
> starts up, it will copy the permissions from /dev/ptyXX and /dev/ttyXX
> for its nodes.
Indeed, a nice approach.
> 4. I did not like the way ttyname() worked with looking up the db file,
> so I let the ioctl to find the pty name work on the slave too. Now
> ttyname() will do the ioctl first to find the ttyname. If that fails,
> then it will lookup in the db. This is a lot faster in the regular
> case these days which is ptys. It is also silly to have entries for
> all the ptys in /etc/ttys. You can now remove them, and the code
> will take up the last + 1 slot for each pty (for either the old
> or the new ptys).
Yes, the db file was huge, but how can I disable a specific tty under ptyfs ?
> 7. Kernels need COMPAT_BSDPTY to be able to allocated old style /dev/ttyXX
> ptys using /dev/ptm. Regular pty allocation will work.
For the others:
As I saw in source-changes@, Christos Zoulas added COMPAT_BSDPTY to the GENERIC kernels.
Rui Paulo firstname.lastname@example.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----