On Saturday 22 October 2011 21:03, Harald Becker wrote: > > Why do you think O_NONBLOCK is wrong? > > > > agetty uses it (always). > > mgetty uses it by default. > > Do not compare with mgetty, mgetty uses a completely different approach > then other getty implementation and has special code to monitor and > control the modem lines (not provided by Busybox getty).
Why agetty uses O_NONBLOCK? No one in so many years fixed that? > > I mean, I can't just take your work for that. My typo. s/work/word/ > > Show me that most/all gettys which have this option > > explicitly say that this data are not meant to be used > > to initialize modem. > > I do neither have access to the documentation of all getty > implementations I used nor like to spend time searching for such > documentation. It was a suggestion, consider to use or drop it. Your > decision. > > IMHO. The current Busybox getty is modeled close to standard getty > functionality and as this is error prune on none local lines if INITSTR > is used for modem initialization. Either drop that (modem init) feature > or getty needs rework to function proper on none local lines (which > currently fails). That was the intention of my note (from context of > thread). I am not convinced that busybox needs to change something which was done a certain way for many years, and apprently not mnay people complained. I summarized current status and currently unresolved issues in this new file: http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/loginutils/README -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
