Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:41:56 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Remove pty(4) Message-ID: <90480.1417092116@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20141127095229.GO17068@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CACYV=-E1BA3rHP5s%2BCs-X-J5CNAaSNxDgqPkgnJu3uUXCyaUGA@mail.gmail.com> <1471750.VzNR6ldJSe@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CACYV=-FLkKzHRuD7je9x4qB-AtOrBgi6y4fsUEQUy_GhRezhuA@mail.gmail.com> <20141127095229.GO17068@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- 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 <jhb@freebsd.org> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?90480.1417092116>