Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754199AbZIJUjc (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:39:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754153AbZIJUjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:39:31 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:36592 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753239AbZIJUja (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:39:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4AA96328.1040809@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:35:52 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab CC: Alan Cox , Alan Cox , LKML , Kay Sievers , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] char/tty_io: fix legacy pty name when more than 256 pty devices are requested References: <20090908144942.76ddf0e7@caramujo.chehab.org> <4AA6DF50.3030603@zytor.com> <20090908203323.486c129c@caramujo.chehab.org> <4AA6F63F.7090009@zytor.com> <20090908235441.04549a29@caramujo.chehab.org> <4AA73309.8030302@zytor.com> <20090910010512.60a1f523@caramujo.chehab.org> <4AA89B02.1050909@zytor.com> <20090910093301.4ccfd786@caramujo.chehab.org> <20090910150716.66310f02@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4AA92487.5080401@zytor.com> <20090910161215.5129bd71@caramujo.chehab.org> <4AA950C8.1080200@zytor.com> <20090910170538.3df10839@caramujo.chehab.org> In-Reply-To: <20090910170538.3df10839@caramujo.chehab.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1335 Lines: 33 On 09/10/2009 01:05 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >> Yes, but you have to port the application *anyway* do deal with the >> namespace. > > Or create some udev rules for that. > udev rules does zero good, because the way the BSD ptys go, the application itself needs to understand what the naming scheme is. So it is an application-by-application slog. >> BSD tty allocation is done largely by each application, >> which makes it even worse. Furthermore, there is the static allocation >> issue, so unless there is a concrete application which needs this *and* >> cannot be ported to Unix98 ptys (which is the Right Thing[TM] to do) I >> think Alan is right. > > The amount of static allocation space can be controlled via pty.legacy_count > boot parameter. It overrides whatever specified at CONFIG_LEGACY_PTY_COUNT. > You can even let LEGACY_PTY_COUNT = 0 and enable the actual numbers of needed > legacy ptys via boot parameter, where needed. So, this is not a problem on a > real situation. It still means you are statically allocating a fixed number at boot time. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/