Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:02:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: COMPAT_43 tty processing ? Message-ID: <9697234.1088589767326.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:22:01PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <200406241859.54810.peter@wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes:
> > >On Wednesday 23 June 2004 04:27 pm, David Schultz wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > >> > Do we need the COMPAT_43 tty processing in 5-STABLE ?
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I used to run with COMPAT_43 disabled entirely. I think the
> > >> only breakage I noticed was that the Linuxolator didn't work
> > >> anymore because of a number of `#ifdef COMPAT_43's in the socket
> > >> code that linux.ko depends on.
> > >
> > >These should probably be broken out as COMPAT_OLDSOCK, whih is implied
> > >by the linuxulator or COMPAT_43 or the like.
> >
> > Or better yet: made unncessary in the linuxolator ?
>
> This is what NetBSD has done. At one stage I had patches derived from
> their code that removed the need for the COMPAT_43 socket functions,
> but COMPAT_43 was still necessary for ostat(), etc.
Please do not remove any code protected by COMPAT_43 which provides any of
the functionality listed on either of the following two standards document
references:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/termios.h.html
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap11.html#tag_11
(Yes, I know that this code should not be inside COMPAT_43 protection, but
as far as I can tell, no on has disentagled it).
-- Terr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9697234.1088589767326.JavaMail.root>