Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:40:09 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: terry@lambert.org, davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au, bde@zeta.org.au, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: DEVFS permissions &c. Message-ID: <199701131740.KAA27986@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <32D98774.59E2B600@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jan 12, 97 04:53:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I mean, shouldn't pty's be handled by: > > > [description of cloning devices deleted] > > yes, but it could be even simpler.. > > make the server side appear when you open and are assigned a > client side pty. OK, I don't understand this... I think you want the master open before the slave (doesn't closing the master EOF the slave, potentially SIGHUP'ing the process group if -clocal?). Why do you want an FS object, rather than a post-open ioctl, to derive the slave node? I don't need a namespace entry in the devfs to provide a means of creating an fd reference to the slave vnode ...my example used an ioctl() on the master to get there. > julian > (patches accepted) Let's explore what a "correct" implementation should look like, first, and generate patches after that. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701131740.KAA27986>