2.6.0-test kernel and pty problems
Joerg W Mittag
Joerg.Mittag at Web.De
Wed Jul 30 16:00:13 PDT 2003
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 18:12, Joerg W Mittag wrote:
>> Jeremy Utley wrote:
>>> However, there's one possible issue - I do use devfs, so I'm
>>> wondering if devfs in 2.6 is still buggy in this respect.
>>> Anyone else been experimenting and have any ideas on what I
>>> should look for?
>> The solution is actually pretty simple: since there *is* a
>> working pseudo filesystem for pseudo ttys and code duplication is
>> a bad thing anyway, the buggy code you mentioned has simply been
>> removed. That means you have to mount devpts on top of /dev/pts
>> regardless of whether you use a static /dev or devfs.
> Thanks! However, hopefully, the kernel developers will update the
> help files for devfs and devpts to reflect this before release -
> the help files still imply that devpts is not needed when devfs is
> in use.
Yes, indeed, the information is "very well hidden" (to say the least).
In fact, AFAIK the only place where it's mentioned (apart from various
"Hey, I upgraded to 2.5.68 and now my PTYs don't work!"-postings on
lkml) is the 2.5.68 ChangeLog:
| hch at lst.de
| [PATCH] make devpts filesystem mandatory even for CONFIG_DEVFS
| This patch rips out handling of UNIX98 ptys from devfs. We
| already have a special small filesystem to handle it (devpts)
| that's always compiled in anyway. This allows to get rid of
| all DEVFS_FL* flags and some gunk in devfs.
I wouldn't have known if I hadn't eventually skimmed through lkml on
the very day 2.5.68 was released.
More information about the blfs-support