[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c3e598f-35f8-4abd-8c62-4655d33b0750@email.android.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:04:13 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: deprecating/removing the legacy mode of devpts
Even "doing it manually" gets hard because udev gets in the way.
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:36:26 -0700
>"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, devpts supports a legacy mode where only one instance
>exists.
>> For backwards compatibility, this is also the default mode, but the
>> right thing should be to migrate everyone over to the "newinstance"
>scheme.
>>
>> However, it is increasingly clear that that is not happening; neither
>> the distros nor udev support this by default at this point.
>
>Well maybe thats because the legacy mode works perfectly well for most
>purposes and does what they want. The "non-legacy" mode is really not
>"non-legacy" its "special case extra funkiness".
>
>With my tty hat on I'd prefer to keep it indefinitely if need be. It's
>hardly a maintainability issue or a hot problem. We've got much bigger
>turds to juggle than that.
>
>I don't see why we need an agendum to force the users into making
>changes
>that really don't matter. I mean we still support BSD ptys 8)
>
>Alan
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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