Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:52:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: pts code committed Message-ID: <20060128215112.W95776@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525@dungeon.home> References: <20060126022854.GA16323@ci0.org> <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org> <200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525@dungeon.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Stephen McKay wrote: > 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! You are right, that is what it does. This is actually an intentional design choice to match the behavior in Solaris, which also names them /dev/ptyp*. Well, strictly speaking, those are just symlinks into /devices, but it comes to much the same thing. You are probably right, though -- naming them /dev/pty/* would make more sense, and won't affect the libc API. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060128215112.W95776>