[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage)
    In article <>,
    Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> wrote:
    > writes:
    >> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:59:59 +0200 (MET DST)
    >> From: Peter Svensson <>
    >> I am not familiar with the reasons for using major/minor-pair for
    >> locking so I don't know if another solution is feasable. Do you have
    >> any pointers for additional reading? :-)
    >> The problem is things like /dev/modem being a symlink (or perhaps even a
    >> hard link) to /dev/ttyS0. So it would be useful to use a lockfile that
    >> includes the major and minor device number, in addition to using a
    >> lockfile that is based on the device name. The basic idea is that
    >> people want to have different device names to refer to the same device,
    >> so we need to lock based the major/minor devices.
    >Well, I've seen one comment already questioning whether major/minor
    >device locks are the better way of doing it, instead of flock(2).
    >However, ignoring that, I think it would be simple enough to implement
    >a non tty-specific locking scheme in devfs. I already have the auto
    >ownership facility.
    >What does this device locking need? Just limit the number of open(2)s
    >to 1?

    More than that.

    You need a locking scheme that will support a getty listening on the
    port (one open) and will also support things that want to grab the
    port for outgoing traffic (the second open.)

    david parsons \bi/ I [heart] mgetty

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.021 / U:5.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site