Subject: Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/11/2004 23:05:54
In article <20041111223532.GA1552@panix.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:51:29PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Sure, that will work the same as before. The problem with such
>> scripts is that what happens when someone is using ptyqf? I'd rather
>> have a program that opens a pty dynamically and then makes a symbolic
>> link from it to a known name. When the program exits, it can remove
>> the symbolic link. It is trivial to change the code to take the
>> symbolic link destination name instead of the actual pty, and then
>> use openpty() to allocate a pty dynamically.
>So, all ptys will always have names in the filesystem?
The open slave sides should (it would be strange if they did not).
The master side does not need to have one (and it does not).
To answer the question differently. If you don't need the functionality
of being able to open a particular pty by name, you can remove
/dev/pty?? and /dev/tty?? [ahem, not literally because /dev/ttyE0
is not a pty, but you get my drift].