From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 2 06:09:17 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CF0106566B for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:09:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: from palm.hoeg.nl (mx0.hoeg.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:613:100::211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A128FC1D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:09:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: by palm.hoeg.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B06241CC50; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:10:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:10:03 +0200 From: Ed Schouten To: FreeBSD Hackers Message-ID: <20090402061003.GR13393@hoeg.nl> References: <20090401205306.GO13393@hoeg.nl> <20090401205703.GX31897@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20090401210835.GP13393@hoeg.nl> <20090401215308.GA91493@psconsult.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cEobB2knsyc5ebfU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090401215308.GA91493@psconsult.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Subject: Re: How to increase the max pty's on Freebsd 7.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:09:17 -0000 --cEobB2knsyc5ebfU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > Or change 'pts' to, for example, 'pt' so without changing utmp and > related stuff we'll have space for a four digit pty number. I've noticed lots of apps already misbehave because of the pty(4) -> pts(4) migration. I guess using a new naming scheme would totally break stuff. There are lots of apps that do things like: if (strncmp(tty, "tty", 3) !=3D 0 && strncmp(tty, "pts/", 4) !=3D 0) printf("Not a valid pseudo-terminal!\n"); But those are just workarounds. Our utmp format is broken anyway. It's not just UT_LINESIZE that's too small. I think we received many complaints from people who want to increase UT_HOSTSIZE as well. --=20 Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ --cEobB2knsyc5ebfU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAknUVrsACgkQ52SDGA2eCwVf7gCbBaCDXQqUoob9km1Ez91GE+V8 MsEAnizIY204sjtjc6l260HG9nfPY4D/ =bq9R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cEobB2knsyc5ebfU--