From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 27 13:46:44 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E95FA2; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971546BC; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696823BD3A; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sARCfua6090481; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:41:57 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: RFC: Remove pty(4) In-reply-to: <20141127095229.GO17068@kib.kiev.ua> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" References: <1471750.VzNR6ldJSe@ralph.baldwin.cx> <20141127095229.GO17068@kib.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <90473.1417092106.1@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:41:56 +0000 Message-ID: <90480.1417092116@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Davide Italiano , Ed Schouten , freebsd-current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:46:44 -0000 -------- In message <20141127095229.GO17068@kib.kiev.ua>, Konstantin Belousov writes: >On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00:14 AM Davide Italiano wrote: >> >> One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning mechanism >> >> entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still relying >> >> on such mechanism. >Why this is good thing to do ? I must have missed this detail back in august. I checked my archive of incoming email and I couldn't find any reason or argument for removing dev_clone mechanism, and I would very much object to its removal, unless a very compelling reason exists ? I'll admit that the name is slightly misleading, it is really a "dev_ondemand" facility which can also be used for cloning, and because all the initial uses were cloning it got that name. (I have no soft feelings for the pty driver) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.