Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:02:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: COMPAT_43 tty processing ? Message-ID: <9697234.1088589767326.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:22:01PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <200406241859.54810.peter@wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes: > > >On Wednesday 23 June 2004 04:27 pm, David Schultz wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > >> > Do we need the COMPAT_43 tty processing in 5-STABLE ? > > >> > > >> FWIW, I used to run with COMPAT_43 disabled entirely. I think the > > >> only breakage I noticed was that the Linuxolator didn't work > > >> anymore because of a number of `#ifdef COMPAT_43's in the socket > > >> code that linux.ko depends on. > > > > > >These should probably be broken out as COMPAT_OLDSOCK, whih is implied > > >by the linuxulator or COMPAT_43 or the like. > > > > Or better yet: made unncessary in the linuxolator ? > > This is what NetBSD has done. At one stage I had patches derived from > their code that removed the need for the COMPAT_43 socket functions, > but COMPAT_43 was still necessary for ostat(), etc. Please do not remove any code protected by COMPAT_43 which provides any of the functionality listed on either of the following two standards document references: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/termios.h.html http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap11.html#tag_11 (Yes, I know that this code should not be inside COMPAT_43 protection, but as far as I can tell, no on has disentagled it). -- Terr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9697234.1088589767326.JavaMail.root>