From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 24 08:42:14 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C4C1065672; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:42:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0684B8FC0C; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:42:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57E746B98; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:42:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:42:13 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ed Schouten In-Reply-To: <20080824083623.GN99951@hoeg.nl> Message-ID: References: <200808231436.m7NEasMo005071@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080823215322.GJ99951@hoeg.nl> <20080823222745.GL99951@hoeg.nl> <20080824083623.GN99951@hoeg.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.amd64 ttys src/etc/etc.arm ttys src/etc/etc.i386 ttys src/etc/etc.ia64 ttys src/etc/etc.mips ttys src/etc/etc.powerpc ttys src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:42:14 -0000 On Sun, 24 Aug 2008, Ed Schouten wrote: >>> The current /etc/ttys already seemed like an improvement when compared to >>> the old one, where we spent 2 out of 3 entries on commonly unused PTY >>> names. What kind of ratio do you propose? >> >> For 256 lines in /etc/ttys, you can keep people's systems working with >> older applications. Doesn't seem like a big sacrifice -- it's not like >> we're forcing Giant to be kept on part of the kernel, etc. > > Okay. Sounds okay. That means we've basically switched the priorities. First > we had: > > - 512 entries for pty(4) > - 256 entries for pts(4) > > Now we're going to switch it to: > > - 256 entries for pty(4) > - 512 entries for pts(4) > > I'll only add the entries for tty[pqrsPQRS]. John and I chatted a bit last night, and we think reordering introduces a potential short-term ABI confusion until the next reboot, but that once a reboot takes place the problem is resolved. This is consistent with other weird things happening if you upgrade /etc without rebooting, so this seems OK. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge