Small test.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
main (){
int amaster, aslave, master;
char name[100] = "/dev/ptm";
struct termios termp;
struct winsize winp;
printf("Pty
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On 04.04.2014 18:40, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>>
>> Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
>> point
>> then so we get the correct one?
>
> Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next
> mount point,
&
>
> Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount point
> then so we get the correct one?
Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next mount
point,
shouldn't replace previous, else incorrect TIOCPTMGET(path) for already opened
pty we will
Some misspelling corrections.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h|2 +
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 63 ++--
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c | 25 ++-
kern/tty_bsdpty.c | 11 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c | 45 ---
>
> - I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
> in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
> an entry function to get the mount point instead, and this way all the guts
> of ptyfs stay in ptyfs.
Looks better, thank you.
> - I
On 01.04.2014 23:38, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This patch introduces subject.
> Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
> BSD pty compatibility improvement.
>
> Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
> Also I am not su
Hello!
This patch introduces subject.
Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
BSD pty compatibility improvement.
Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
Also I am not sure about, how, correctly release unused vnode and return it
for system and call recla
> | On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> | > Hello!
> | > Maybe you skipped:
> | > Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
> | >
> | > ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
> | > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Pleas
On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> Hello!
> Maybe you skipped:
> Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
>
> ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Resending.
>
> Also main patch for subjec
Hello!
Maybe you skipped:
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Resending.
Also main patch for subject.
I didn't want locate many code in ptm driver, but in real world,
it was the most suitable
PTYFS has dependency from ptm driver.
If config has NO_DEV_PTM, PTYFS isn't compiled.
PTYFS is useless without ptm.
How, better, this condition is fixed in config files?
> |
> | - error = (*ptm->makename)(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
> | + error = pty_makename(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
> | if (error)
> | return error;
> |
>
> Are you sure about this one? It is used when ptyfs is mounted and you have
> old pty nodes arou
Some minor improvements.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c |4 ++--
kern/tty_bsdpty.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c
===
RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr
Hello!
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c
===
RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/pty
>
> You can't find from the driver where the device node file is located
>
OK, I thought so.
Thank you.
Hello!
Please, tell me know if I wrong.
In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its device file located
on file system,
its vnode or its directory vnode where this file located.
Such files can be many and I can't find what file used for current operation.
Maybe anybody had being at
> The mountpoint inside ptm_pty. Perhaps by having separate instances in the ptm
> driver?
>
> christos
>
>
I think, it's not better.
I can do so, but:
1. Now we have only 2 instances ptm_pty, one for ptyfs one for bsdpty
and use its mainly for switch from one to other(we will have ptm_pty ar
>
> I don't understand why you want to get rid of the mountpoint arg inside
> the pty structure. It certainly makes things faster, and the pty can't
> be shared...
>
> christos
>
Sorry, but I don't understand too, what structure do you mean exactly and how.
Ilya.
DONE.
:)
If seriously, it's first working prototype for comments and objections.
It's working as follow:
Mount first ptyfs instance in /dev/pts(or other path) you can get access to
master side
through ptm{x} device.
Mount second ptyfs instance inside chroot(Example: /var/chroot/test/dev/pts),
Hello!
Correct "ptyfs_readdir" for multi mount points use.
ptyfs.h |1 +
ptyfs_subr.c |3 +--
ptyfs_vnops.c |2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h
===
RCS file: /cv
> | > People did not like that.
> |
> | Didn't like what "if 1" or "return EBUSY"?
>
> The return EBUSY...
>
Ok, but bug will stay in the system, temporarily.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 16 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c |9 -
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions
> | *--bp = '\0';
> | - error = getcwd_common(cwdi->cwdi_rdir, rootvnode, &bp,
> | + error = getcwd_common(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, cwdi->cwdi_rdir, &bp,
> | buf, MAXBUF / 2, 0, l);
>
> Might as well pass NULL for cwdi->cwdi_rdir, since it does the same.
>
But it is less obvious, an
Hello!
For not accumulate many changes and keep patch clear.
I am sending some error fix and modifications for future work and discussion
too.
Please, if possible, include it in current tree.
Little explanations:
1. We shouldn't mount more than one ptyfs.(dependency from unmount order).
Pa
>
> if the first mount can only have [0..n-1] the second [n...2*n] etc...
>
"165:0 165:1" is ptm[x] first instance devices. "165:2 165:3" is ptm[x] second
instance devices ...
Every instance can have [0..N] pts devices.
Ilya.
On 14.03.2014 18:40, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
>>> could have multiple ptmx
On 14.03.2014 17:51, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 14, 5:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | Ok.
> |
> | 1. The main problem and question in this project(IMHO), it's how get access
> for
>
> | I have few questions about project.
> | Christos, can I ask you about this?
> | Please, if anybody has objections or already doing it, tell me know.
>
> Nobody is already doing it, and if you have questions, you came to the right
> place.
>
> christos
>
Ok.
1. The main problem and quest
Hello!
I desire develop this project.
About me.
I am system administrator in little Italy-Russia's firm. I live in Moscow.
OS kernel it's my hobby mainly.
I have free time now and can do this project about 1-2 months.
I have little experience with Linux kernel's tty layer and few accepted patches.
31 matches
Mail list logo
