Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:31:43 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: pts code committed Message-ID: <200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org> from Robert Watson at "Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:15:30 %2B0000" References: <20060126022854.GA16323@ci0.org> <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 26th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote: >On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Olivier Houchard wrote: > >> Robert Watson and myself have been working on a pts implementation, ala >> SysV/linux, for quite some time... This is a long overdue feature, so well done! However there's something that looks a bit odd to me, and since I don't have -current set up at the moment, I can't check directly, so I'll ask here: Is it true that the naming scheme uses /dev/pts/999 and /dev/pty999, not /dev/pty/999? If so, that looks like a mistake. Is there something stopping the cleaner naming being used? If I've just read the code wrong, then I apologise and will immediately clear bench space for a -current test box! Stephen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525>