From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 20 01:23:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA20291 for current-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA20286 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.5/8.7.3) id IAA15732; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:50:33 GMT From: Adam David Message-Id: <199706200850.IAA15732@veda.is> Subject: Re: getty modem control In-Reply-To: <19970620073506.MK21253@uriah.heep.sax.de> from J Wunsch at "Jun 20, 97 07:35:06 am" To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:50:31 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [Adam] > > 1. Would anyone be terribly upset if I added modem string grabbing support > > to getty? This would be useful for logging caller ID and connect speed. In case it wasn't clear, this would be a fleshing out of :ac=...: and only affects the answer chat script. [Jörg] > Yep, i'm very reluctant to such things in the regular getty. The > reason for this reluctance is that you gotta abuse the inbound port. > Normally, the inbound port is supposed to block inside open(2) until > carrier arrives. I understand that your intended changes would break > this (as well as David Nugent's changes broke this, see below). Actually, I much prefer the blocking approach for most purposes, and am considering a reshuffle of the code to allow :ac=...: in that case also, requiring a new capability to describe whether to block on open or wait in select. How about :nb: for non-blocking, and default to blocking? -- Adam David