On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> wrote: > Hi Maksim, > > * Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> wrote: >> > * Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> so, for now, i think we should keep rfcomm_sppd(1) as it is. if this >> >> is not an option (with new tty subsystem) then we should convert it to >> >> use nmdm(4) or something similar. >> > >> > Well, the problem with the current approach is that if you remove >> > "device pty" from your kernel config, it won't work. With MPSAFE TTY we >> > switched to Unix98-style pseudo-terminals, so the preferred mechanism is >> > to call posix_openpt() (or open /dev/ptmx) and use ptsname() to >> > determine which character device to use. >> >> is there a way allocate tty with a given name under "new world order"? > > No, there isn't. I have been thinking about this. Allowing > pseudo-terminals to be allocated with a certain name would allow us to > do things like implementing device drivers as a daemon in userspace. ok >> > I won't change anything now, but will keep my patch at the before >> > mentioned URL. >> >> like i said, the only problem i have here is that any rfcomm_sppd >> callers will have to do extra work to figure which tty was allocated. >> that is the biggest difference from user's point of view. > > Well, we already have existing tools that use such an approach as well, > like mdmconfig. They print a name of the md device to stdout. I'm not > saying I'm 100% happy with this approach, but it's more correct than > just reserving a certain pseudo-terminal device name. do you mean mdconfig(8) and its ability to print auto-allocated /dev/md device unit? if so, it can also allocate specific /dev/md unit, so it really has both options. your patch simply eliminates one of the option and forces users to always use auto-allocation. i'm not saying its bad, i'm just saying its different from what it used to be. that is all. anyway, i guess conversion to nmdm(4) is in order then. at least this way users will have to change /dev/tty to /dev/nmdm which is possibly less pain than other alternatives. while we are at it, we also could implement your approach, i.e. auto-allocate and print /dev/nmdm node if requested. thanks, maxReceived on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 18:08:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:42 UTC