Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There definitely needs to be a mount option (and possibly a config
option to forcibly enable the mount option). I personally have 5 or 6
different custom scripts that depend on being able to unmount
There definitely needs to be a mount option (and possibly a config
option to forcibly enable the mount option). I personally have 5 or 6
different custom scripts that depend on being able to unmount and
remount devpts without losing access to the TTYs therein. Eventually
I will need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If devpts is mounted more than once, then '/dev/ptmx' must be a symlink
to '/dev/pts/ptmx' and in each new devpts mount we must create the
device node '/dev/pts/ptmx' [c, 5;2] by hand.
This should be auto-created. That also eliminates any need to support
the
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If devpts is mounted more than once, then '/dev/ptmx' must be a symlink
to '/dev/pts/ptmx' and in each new devpts mount we must create the
device node '/dev/pts/ptmx' [c, 5;2] by hand.
This should be auto-created. That also
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Appreciate comments on overall approach of my mapping from the inode
to sb-s_fs_info to allocated_ptys and the hacky use of get_sb_nodev(),
and also on the tweak to init_dev() (patch 6).
First of all, thanks for taking this on :) It's always delightful to
spout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. But was wondering if we can pass the ptmx symlink burden to the
'container-startup sripts' since they are the ones that need the second
or subsequent mount of devpts.
So, initially and for systems that don't need multiple mounts of devpts,
existing behavior
