[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48010583.3020403@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:54:59 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: sukadev@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
serue@...ibm.com, matthltc@...ibm.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Multiple instances of devpts
Al Viro wrote:
>
> *boggle*
>
> Care to explain how that "namespace" is different from devpts instance?
> IOW, why the devil do you guys ignore Occam's Razor?
>
> Frankly, this nonsense has gone far enough; I can buy the need to compensate
> for shitty APIs (sockets, non-fs-based-IPC, etc.), but devpts *is* *a*
> *fucking* *filesystem*. Already. And as such it's already present in
> normal, real, we-really-shouldn't-have-any-other-if-not-for-ancient-stupidity
> namespace.
>
> Why not simply allow independent instances of devpts and be done with that?
In particular:
/dev/ptmx can be a symlink ptmx -> pts/ptmx, and we add a ptmx instance
inside the devpts filesystem. Each devpts filesystem is responsible for
its own pool of ptys, with own numbering, etc.
This does mean that entries in /dev/pts are more than just plain device
nodes, which they are now (you can cp -a a device node from /dev/pts
into another filesystem and it will still "just work"), but I doubt this
actually matters to anyone. If anyone cares, now I guess would be a
good time to speak up.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists