Hi Takashi, On Dec 28 17:35, Takashi Yano wrote: > The commit 25c4ad6ea52f did not fix the CTTY behavior enough. For > example, in the following test case, TTY will be associated as > a CTTY on the second open() call even though the TTY is already > CTTY of another session. This patch fixes the issue.
The patch is ok, thanks. But while looking into this patch, I realized how confusing the old code is. An unsuspecting reader will have a really hard time to figure out what ctty values of -1 or -2 actually mean. The CVS log entry from 2012 isn't enlightening either: On second thought, in the spirit of keeping things kludgy, set ctty to -2 here as a special flag ... Would you mind to introduce speaking symbolic values for them and add some comments to make them more transparent? Also, given this was a "kludge" from 10 years ago, is it really still needed? As I said, it's confusing :} Thanks, Corinna
