Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:02:21 +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: <200601301102.k0UB2L0q006713@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <20060128215112.W95776@fledge.watson.org> from Robert Watson at "Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:52:34 %2B0000" References: <20060126022854.GA16323@ci0.org> <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org> <200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525@dungeon.home> <20060128215112.W95776@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 28th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote: >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. I had a quick look on a Solaris 8 machine and found only legacy pty devices in /dev. In /devices, they lump pts and pty nodes into /devices/pseudo with a lot of other stuff. Very messy. So I don't think the new FreeBSD /dev/ptynnn behaviour is the same as Solaris after all. I checked a Fedora Core 4 box too, and it doesn't put the pty's in /dev at all. At least in all implementations the important part (/dev/pts/nnn) is the same. Anyway, I can't find anything that depends on the naming for the master and it would make /dev tidier to bury pty's in a subdirectory. Shall we add that one missing '/'? The code would then match the comments. :-) Alternatively, the other implementations seem to get by without putting them in the tree at all. Do we need them? Stephen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601301102.k0UB2L0q006713>