[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > TODO: > - Remove even initial kernel mount of devpts ? (If we do, how > do we preserve single-mount semantics) ?
Doesn't make sense unless we decide to drop single-mount semantics in the (far) future. As long as we have an instance that services unconnected ptmx instances, it makes sense to have that instance available to the kernel at all times. I don't like the name "newmnt" for the option; it is not just another mount, but a whole new instance of the pty space. I observe you didn't incorporate my feedback with regards to get_node(). In this scheme, any and all uses of get_node() are bogus; as such, you're missing the huge opportunity for cleanup that comes along with this whole thing. This means breaking compatibility in one very minor way, which is if people copy device nodes out of /dev/pts, but I am feeling pretty sure that that is much better than carrying the ugliness that goes along with the current code. Furthermore, if there are anyone who do something that silly, they need to fix it anyway. The *entire* implementation of devpts_get_tty(), for example, should look like: struct tty_struct *devpts_get_tty(struct inode *inode) { struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb; if (sb->s_magic == DEVPTS_SUPER_MAGIC) return (struct tty_struct *)inode->i_private; else return NULL; /* Higher layer should return -ENXIO */ } I really appreciate your tackling this implementation. -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel