lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage)
    From
       Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:36:38 +1000
    From: Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>

    Well, I've seen one comment already questioning whether major/minor
    device locks are the better way of doing it, instead of flock(2).

    flock(2) simply doesn't work because you may need to keep a tty locked
    beyond the lifetime of the process which originally locked the tty.

    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?

    tty locking really doesn't belong in the kernel. It's a lot more
    complex than limiting the number of open's to 1. You need to worry
    about people who have a blocking open waiting for carrier detect going
    high; you need to worry with multiple processes opening /dev/tty when
    someone is logged into a dialup modem. You need to worry about people
    running xmodem in a separate process from kermit, etc., etc.

    - Ted

    -
    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 13:43    [W:0.022 / U:0.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site