In article <532def5e.2040...@izyk.ru>, Ilya Zykov <net...@izyk.ru> wrote: >> 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 array). > 2. Now we keep local ptyfs' data pointer(mp) inside external ptm_pty >it's mistaken way(IMHO). >We have useless "ping pong" local data. Maybe it is conceived for other goal. >Easier keep it in local static pointer and don't pass it in parameters >every function call. > 3. I don't want dispose ptyfs code inside ptm driver. > 4. We will have export "ptyfs__getpath()". > or > 5. Use ptm minor numbers for differentiating factor(or other >differentiating factor), maybe, >useless work, because user space programs use only one instance. >Really multiple instances are needed only for chroot. >Also it complicates user space programs, but give more productivity(we >don't need look up mount point).
Ok this is fine for now then. christos