> Sorry, I meant structured like the files in net. So, the uart could
> instead by structured as:
>
> eia/
> 0/
>ctl data status
> 1/
>ctl data status
usb serial does this, but unfortunately with a different naming
convention, and it's unfortunate since usb serial is then
--- On Tue, 28/6/11, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Speaking of device numbers, I was surprised that Plan 9 has a similar
>> notion. However, they are only useful with kernel resident device
>> numbers. Does Plan 9 have some other mechanism that allow one to
>> identify the class of device/file ser
> also, the `protocol' of creating new /dev/pts/* is somewhat sensible, too. no
> ioctl(), just open /dev/pmtx, read a textual representation of an integer N
> and open /dev/pts/N.
nah, slave name is obtained with ptsname(master) which does
ioctl(TIOCGPTN) on Linux.
...
open("/dev/ptmx", O_RDWR|O
On Monday 27 June 2011 22:17:49 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > It's worth mentioning the devpts (the /dev/pts/* thingies)
>
> not unless it's 1978. :-)
oy, i was unclear.
the main point: (in current linux) you can have several instances of devpts,
by mounting them at various places (with -o newin
> It's worth mentioning the devpts (the /dev/pts/* thingies)
not unless it's 1978. :-)
- erik
On Monday 27 June 2011 20:18:05 Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> The essence of being a 9fan: It is more important to be right than to
> be popular.
The essence of being popular on 9fans: being more right than popular elsewhere
;-)
On Monday 27 June 2011 19:20:57 ron minnich wrote:
> (...stuff...) on
ron minnich :
> I used to think 10 years was a hugely long time to get
> changes into the world, now I'm thinking 10 years is remarkably quick,
> and 20 is more the rule, unless you hit the right idea at just the
> right time. Which means each of us has maybe 4 chances in life to
> really push a ch
The essence of being a 9fan: It is more important to be right than to
be popular.
(although it would be nice to eventually be popular -- preferably
during one's lifetime)
-Skip
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Jeff Sickel wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:20 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>
>> Which me
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:20 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Which means each of us has maybe 4 chances in life to
> really push a change into the world. There, I just made your day.
Great, missed every one of those chances. Might as well throw in
the towel, stop resisting the inevitable, and chuck any h
> Speaking of device numbers, I was surprised that Plan 9 has a similar
> notion. However, they are only useful with kernel resident device
> numbers. Does Plan 9 have some other mechanism that allow one to
> identify the class of device/file server it belongs to?
>
> In most cases, a name is go
NFS4 on linux has gone with (in addition to everything else) a very
plan 9-like "write commands to files" model that uses text. It's
complex as you can ever imagine, and then some, but at least they seem
to have finally got the idea right to some extent.
The new 802.11 wireless infrastructure, I a
--- On Wed, 22/6/11, David Lukes wrote:
>...
> I'm no RFS guru, thank deity, but I did RTFC once and "F"
> was apposite.
It took me a little time to figure out RTFC wasn't a remote file system ;-)
>
> ioctl was handled by having the client "know" exactly what
> each ioctl "looked like", i.e. it
>ioctl was handled by having the client "know" exactly what each ioctl "looked
>like", i.e. it only worked for known cases.
there isn't really any other choice, especially between machines
with different conventions. i think it was one of the bigger parts
of the newcastle connection implementatio
> Thanks for the info, but the devices encumbered with ioctls are the tricky
> ones and even if they can be sorted out I'm sure there are some other traps
> out there. Too bad there are no RFS gurus lurking here to offer their wisdom
> on remoting devices.
I'm no RFS guru, thank deity, but I di
--- On Tue, 21/6/11, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
...
>> Um, does v9fs remote Linux devices? I find it hard to
>> imagine it would remote ioctls but it makes sense *nix to
>> *nix.
>>
>
> Depends on how you configure it. There is a nodevmap
> option to the v9fs mount which will instruct it to jus
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>
> --- On Wed, 8/6/11, I wrote in part:
>
>> I am old enough to remember RFS the Remote File Sharing
>> Protocol on SVR4 that offered access to remote devices, but
>> I don't have that and I'm not aware of whether there are any
>> distributed file protoco
--- On Wed, 8/6/11, I wrote in part:
> I am old enough to remember RFS the Remote File Sharing
> Protocol on SVR4 that offered access to remote devices, but
> I don't have that and I'm not aware of whether there are any
> distributed file protocols freely available for *nix
> that do that.
Um,
17 matches
Mail list logo
