lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 5 Jun 1998 20:45:23 +1000
FromRichard Gooch <>
SubjectRe: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage)
tytso@mit.edu writes:
>    Date: 	Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:56:12 +1000
>    From: Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>
> 
>    > Isn't the devfs supposed to allow major/minor-less devices? I seem to
>    > recall that for some devices major/minor number were used anywas since
>    > userland code used it (mounted filesystems e.g.). For ptys this should be
>    > no problem.
> 
>    Devfs does allows major/minor-less devices. You could hack the tty
>    driver to make use of this. Check out the devfs FAQ at:
>    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/devfs.txt
> 
> This is actually a bad thing, since there's been a lot of talk about
> using major/minor numbers as part of a tty locking scheme.  

Well, you don't actually *have* to get rid of major/minor
numbers. Devfs also allows you to have automatic allocation of device
numbers as well as supporting normal hard-wired major/minor numbers.
In the devfs FAQ I propose automatic device number allocation for SCSI
and tty devices. This would give us up to 64k SCSI partitions and tty
devices without breaking userspace.

BTW: what is this tty locking scheme?

				Regards,

					Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [from the cache]
©2003-2008