Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:36:38 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage) |
| |
tytso@mit.edu writes: > Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:59:59 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Peter Svensson <petersv@df.lth.se> > > 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?
Regards,
Richard....
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |