From owner-freebsd-current Sat Sep 28 11:36:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB7237B401; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hun.org (hun.org [216.190.27.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4481F43E65; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:36:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from attila@hun.org) Received: by hun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A514D66500; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:23:19 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:23:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-Id: <20020928152319.Wz9y8763@hun.org> From: attila! X-Mailer: AttilaMail with XEmacs & Postfix on FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT X-Ballistic: N 37.218497 W 113.614979 X-Address: 31 N 700 E, St George UT 84770-3028 X-No-Archive: yes In-Reply-To: <200209271617.g8RGHBsJ006276@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20020927.011111.127772150.imp@bsdimp.com> <15764.31551.728376.977637@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: John Baldwin , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ttys patch - any objections? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG While we're at it, perhaps a rate limiter can be added to mgetty for cuaa modem ports to kill off flapping ports which should not just timeout for 30 seconds, but should also limit not only the number, but the rate of retries --just plain shutdown. Once the port is reconnected or stabilized, kill -1 1 brings it back. My annoyance with getty/ttys goes back 20+ years when an open or flapping modem port on either Unix or BSD would consume 95% of a VAXen's resources. With a bank of Bell 212 modems, that was a problem. Prior to installing a Bridge terminal interface, I hacked 4.2 accordingly. Sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:17:11 -0700 (PDT) by Matt + :John Baldwin writes: + : > > 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? + : + :Yes! + : + :Thanks, + : + :Drew + + Yah, that makes a whole lot of sense to me too. + + -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message