Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:54:59 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Multiple instances of devpts |
| |
Al Viro wrote: > > *boggle* > > Care to explain how that "namespace" is different from devpts instance? > IOW, why the devil do you guys ignore Occam's Razor? > > Frankly, this nonsense has gone far enough; I can buy the need to compensate > for shitty APIs (sockets, non-fs-based-IPC, etc.), but devpts *is* *a* > *fucking* *filesystem*. Already. And as such it's already present in > normal, real, we-really-shouldn't-have-any-other-if-not-for-ancient-stupidity > namespace. > > Why not simply allow independent instances of devpts and be done with that?
In particular:
/dev/ptmx can be a symlink ptmx -> pts/ptmx, and we add a ptmx instance inside the devpts filesystem. Each devpts filesystem is responsible for its own pool of ptys, with own numbering, etc.
This does mean that entries in /dev/pts are more than just plain device nodes, which they are now (you can cp -a a device node from /dev/pts into another filesystem and it will still "just work"), but I doubt this actually matters to anyone. If anyone cares, now I guess would be a good time to speak up.
-hpa
| |