[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA950C8.1080200@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:17:28 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] char/tty_io: fix legacy pty name when more than 256 pty
devices are requested
On 09/10/2009 12:12 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
> +1. Reusing the namespace after tty[p-za-e][0-9a-f] doesn't seem to be good, IMHO.
>
I think it's better to extend the strings with the current prefixes than
to burn the virgin ttyf* prefix.
> In the case of the BSD sockets, the patch is not just an userless fix. This is
> interesting when some applications are ported from other Unix'es and still uses BSD
> pty's, since several other Unix flavors were defining a higher namespace size.
>
> For example, on zOS Unix, a pty device seems to allow up to 10.000 pty numbers (in the
> specific case of zOS Unix, they seem to be defined as /dev/[pt]typ[0-9]...) as shown at:
> www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg245228.pdf
>
Yes, but you have to port the application *anyway* do deal with the
namespace. BSD tty allocation is done largely by each application,
which makes it even worse. Furthermore, there is the static allocation
issue, so unless there is a concrete application which needs this *and*
cannot be ported to Unix98 ptys (which is the Right Thing[TM] to do) I
think Alan is right.
-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