Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:57:58 +1000 | | From | Richard Gooch <> | | Subject | Re: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage) |
| |
david parsons writes: > In article <linux.kernel.199806090036.KAA08187@vindaloo.atnf.csiro.au>, > Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> wrote: > >tytso@mit.edu writes: > >> 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.)
What's to stop getty from receiving incoming characters which are the result of activity by the second open?
Regards,
Richard.... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
|  |