From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 16 11:04:26 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA06605 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:04:26 -0800 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA06598 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:04:24 -0800 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA03449; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:59:32 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199511161859.LAA03449@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: pty To: didier@omnix.fr.org (Didier Derny) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:59:31 -0700 (MST) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Didier Derny" at Nov 16, 95 10:41:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 663 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > > Is there any possibility to have more than 256 ptys ? > > > Is there any trick to find the next available pty without having to > > > try them all ? > > > > Implement a cloning pty driver. > > In fact I have to control 32 pty with the same process. It might be > more interesting for me to write a driver to multiplex 32 slaves on only > one master. Er. This makes no sense. Unless your program is not going to distinguish between slaves? I'd think the process would care which is which because of implied state. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.