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. > > Also note that some hypervisors implement /dev/hvc0, /dev/xvc0, > /dev/hvsi0 and suchlike. Theser are also ttys, which are used for > interfacing in a VT-like way the virtual machines. But they do not claim > to ve the real VT, they hence picked different tty names. > > UML should follow the same route: pick some name you like, or even > better, pick one of the existing hypervisor tty names if the interface > and usecase is the same, but do not use /dev/tty[1..64], because that is > the VT subsystem. > > systemd handles the hvc0, xvc0, hvsi0 automatically already. We'd be > happy if UML could make use of the same logic. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
