Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:29:59 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: ttyd0/cuad0 - why is there still this duality ? Message-ID: <41F5BD37.8020407@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <20050124.201048.21921498.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20050124083043.GA8729@kukulies.org> <20050124151612.GC628@cicely12.cicely.de> <20050124124250.A27718@pix.net> <20050124.201048.21921498.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20050124124250.A27718@pix.net> > "Kurt J. Lidl" <lidl@pix.net> writes: > : Having seperate dialout and dialin devices really are just a kludge > : for having the kernel doing locking that could be done in userland > : code. > > That's not why they are there. Maybe now; that's not why they were added originally. > > : Just because FreeBSD does this the same way it's been done on > : BSD-ish systems for the last 15 years doesn't mean there isn't a > : better way of doing it. > > That's uncalled for. > > The real reason that they are there is that ttyd waits for carrier > detect, while cua doesn't. Non-blocking open followed by block on read/write and/or select dealt with that long ago. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41F5BD37.8020407>