Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:56:45 -0600 From: Mike Durian <durian@boogie.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tty layer and lbolt sleeps Message-ID: <200309171056.46004.durian@boogie.com> In-Reply-To: <3F68055D.E1094799@mindspring.com> References: <200309161647.38197.durian@boogie.com> <3F68055D.E1094799@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 17 September 2003 12:55 am, Terry Lambert wrote: > > You need your process to become a process group leader, and then > you need the serial port you are interested in to become the > controlling tty for your process. I thought daemon(3) and TIOCSCTTY would do the trick, however after a few tests, I still see the timing problems. This whole process seems like a lot of work just to get decent responsiveness from a serial port. After all, I don't really want to change the controlling terminal. Can anyone explain the rational behind the ttybg1 and ttybg2 sleeps in the tty.c code? Are they really necessary? What sort of horrible things would happen if I removed those clauses? If I am reading things correctly, they've been in the tty.c source code since the initial check-in. Or maybe I'm on a wild goose chase here. Maybe my read and drain delays which seem to be correlated to HZ are really caused by something else. An lbolt sleep just seems like a likely cause to me. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309171056.46004.durian>