From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec 24 16:01:01 1994
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id QAA03724 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:01:01 -0800
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA03715 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 25 Dec 1994 00:00:58 GMT
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA01341; Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:00:36 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA01643; Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:00:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199412250000.QAA01643@corbin.Root.COM>
X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.sax.de
cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Subject: Re: ttymalloc()? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 24 Dec 94 22:37:47 +0100."
             <199412242137.WAA19443@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:00:34 -0800
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>Is anybody going to re-implement this?
>
>My question is since i'm finalizing the patches for pcvt to run on
>FreeBSD 2.0.  My current policy is to enable ttymalloc() for
>FreeBSD >= 1.1.5 but not 2.0.  But this would require it to be sure
>it will be in the next official release.  If this is not sure, i'd
>go for ``FreeBSD >= 1.1.5 && FreeBSD < 2.0'' with the option to
>expand this by ``|| FreeBSD > 2.foobar'' in future.

   The only reason that dynamic allocation of tty structs isn't in 2.0 is
because I had a zillion things to keep straight in my head when I did the
initial 2.0 kernel port from the 4.4-lite sources, and implementing this
at the time was too much trouble. It was already difficult to write & debug
tty_subr.c without a functioning kernel.
   It was my intention to re-implement this at some later time, but other
things have been more important.

>The related question is: would it be similiar to FreeBSD 1.1.5, or
>similiar to NetBSD? >:-)

   I recall Guido was the one to put this support in FreeBSD, so I suppose it
is his decision on how it should be done for 1.1.5.

-DG