On 11/28/14, 2:37 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On Nov 27, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00:14 AM Davide Italiano wrote: >>>>> One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning mechanism >>>>> entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still relying >>>>> on such mechanism. >> Why this is good thing to do ? >> [...] >> You don't, but other people care about ABI. >> >> Besides older jails which you do not care about, there is significant >> set of programs which were coded to use Berkley' pty directly. Even >> high-profile applications like Emacs automatically selected pty(4) >> up to its previous version on FreeBSD. >> [...] >> I do not see why dev_clone event makes your so unhappy. I object against >> removal of it (and this is what you are aiming at, it seems). It provides >> useful functionality, which is not substituted by anything cdevpriv(9) >> can provide. [...] > Thank you kib, I feel the same about leaving the pty system as it is. the pty ABI is so well known and so ubiquitous that I think changing it in any major way is asking for trouble. Also whatever you do, jails running 4.x (or older) software MUST continue to run, and be able to have ptys behave as they expect. > > -Alfred > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Fri Nov 28 2014 - 14:50:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:54 UTC