Dla tych, co nie sledza l-k: dostalem odpowiedz. Andrew Morton wrote: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:16:04 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PTS alocation problem with 2.6.4/2.6.5
Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > You need a glibc upgrade - we broke things for really old glibc's. We're > > (slowly) working on fixing it up. > > Looking at patch-2.6.4, there are plenty of minor changes to the pty > code but nothing that looks like it would break userspace except for > _very_ old glibcs that don't know about /dev/pts at all and just used > the legacy ones. > > I have some _non-glibc_ pty code that I wish to keep working. Can you > briefly explain how it breaks with moderately old glibcs such as the > glibc-2.3.3 that's said to be inadequate, and therefore what interface > change is needed in non-glibc code? > Andrzej is using a glibc that "does not support minors > 255". The oldest glibc I have around here is glibc-2.2.5-34 and it passes Andrzej's `for a in $(seq 4);do ssh -t remote tty;done' test OK. I do not know at which version they started to permit larger values for minors, but it must have been some time ago. A small number of people are hurting from the removal of first-fit pty allocation and I do think it needs to be put back. I have a patch but neither Peter nor I have actually tested it yet. I'll aim to get it into 2.6.6. -- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Gdansk University of Technology _______________________________________________________ z�ota zasada - kto si� nie zna, niech si� nie wypowiada
