Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:35:47 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: mark@grondar.za, current@FreeBSD.ORG, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: ttys patch - any objections? Message-ID: <XFMail.20020927113547.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020927.011111.127772150.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Sep-2002 M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <XFMail.20020926120139.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
>:
>: On 26-Sep-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>: >
>: > Mark Murray writes:
>: > > Hi
>: > >
>: > > The attached patch gets done by me any time I set up a FreeBSD
>: > > box (I like lots of VTYs and X on ALT-F12).
>: > >
>: > > Any objections to my committing this?
>: >
>: > I object.
>: >
>: > Most of my machines are headless without video cards and use a serial
>: > console. With devfs this means that /dev/ttyv[1-N] do not exist and
>: > getty bitches like this:
>: >
>: > Sep 26 11:00:11 monet getty[543]: open /dev/ttyv1: No such file or directory
>: >
>: > Its an incredible pain in the ass to get spammed by these things on a
>: > 9600 baud serial console while you're editing ttys to turn the damned
>: > things off. I don't want to have to have 4 more lines of spam to
>: > deal with when installing a new server.
>: >
>: > If you also fix getty to silently ignore the problem and go to sleep
>: > forever, then I withdraw my objection.
>:
>: Index: init.c
>: ===================================================================
>: RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/sbin/init/init.c,v
>: retrieving revision 1.51
>: diff -u -r1.51 init.c
>: --- init.c 3 Aug 2002 16:21:33 -0000 1.51
>: +++ init.c 26 Sep 2002 15:56:57 -0000
>: @@ -939,7 +939,7 @@
>: * then don't add the device to the session list.
>: */
>: if ((fd = open(sp->se_device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK, 0)) < 0) {
>: - if (errno == ENXIO) {
>: + if (errno == ENXIO || errno == ENOENT) {
>: free_session(sp);
>: return (0);
>: }
>:
>: (Maybe we should detect devfs somewhere else and use
>: || devfs_present && errno == ENOENT) instead.)
>
> Why? If someone hasn't done a MAKEDEV of the device, it is just as
> dead. MAKEDEV + kill -1 1 will bring it back if they didn't
> (untested, but it is the normal way to do these things).
Agreed, that's why I said "maybe" b/c it would be preserving the
behavior for the !devfs case. I agree that I think it should actually
always just give up if the device file doesn't exist. So do people
agree with this change?
> Warner
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020927113547.jhb>