From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 13 10:28:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA27689 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA27679 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA27986; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:40:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701131740.KAA27986@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: DEVFS permissions &c. To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:40:09 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au, bde@zeta.org.au, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <32D98774.59E2B600@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jan 12, 97 04:53:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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.