-------- In message <[email protected]>, Konstantin Belousov writes:
>On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM, John Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00:14 AM Davide Italiano wrote: >> >> One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning mechanism >> >> entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still relying >> >> on such mechanism. >Why this is good thing to do ? I must have missed this detail back in august. I checked my archive of incoming email and I couldn't find any reason or argument for removing dev_clone mechanism, and I would very much object to its removal, unless a very compelling reason exists ? I'll admit that the name is slightly misleading, it is really a "dev_ondemand" facility which can also be used for cloning, and because all the initial uses were cloning it got that name. (I have no soft feelings for the pty driver) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
