Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:40:53 +0200 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] um: change defconfig to stop spawning xterm |
| |
Lennart,
Am 23.07.2013 00:32, schrieb Lennart Poettering: > On Mon, 22.07.13 16:13, Ramkumar Ramachandra (artagnon@gmail.com) wrote: > >> >> [Corrected Lennart's email ID] >> >> Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> CC'ing Lennart. >>> >>> Am 22.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: >>>> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >>>>> [1]: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-July/012152.html >>>> >>>> ... and the patches were rejected. Lennart says that UML providing >>>> /dev/tty* is wrong, and that UML should call them /dev/hvc* (or >>>> something). Can we do something about the situation? Can we remove >>>> /dev/tty*, and provide /dev/hvc*? Will we be breaking existing users? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Lennart Poettering wrote: >>>>> UML shouldn't be penalized for not implementing some terminal emulation, >>>>> but it should be penalized for doing so under the label of "VT support", >>>>> which it simply is not providing. >>>>> >>>>> They can call their ttys any way they want. If the call them >>>>> /dev/tty[1..64] however, then they need to implement the VC >>>>> interfaces. All of them. >>> >>> Lennart, can you please explain us why /dev/tty[1..64] is forced to >>> have virtual console support? > > /dev/tty[1..64] is the userspace API to the kernel VT subsystem. If you > support it you need to match up all /dev/tty[1..64] with a > /dev/vcs[1..64] + /dev/vcsa[1..64]. You need to expose a tty that > understands TERM=linux and the ioctls listed on console_ioctl(4). You > need /dev/tty0 as something that behaves like a symlink to the fg > VT. You should also support files like /sys/class/tty/tty0/active with > its POLLHUP iface.
I sightly disagree with you. /dev/tty[1..64] is not directly bound to VT. You can have systems with CONFIG_VT=n and still have /dev/tty[1..64]. Linux supports this perfectly. UML does not have VT because having virtual consoles makes no sense. (Same like on s390)
Thanks, //richard
| |