Re: Faketty modified

[Aivils S. <ai...@un...>]

On Ceturtdiena, 11. Maijs 2006 00:15, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom =EDrta:
> > --- Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb...@fr...> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> first, I would like to thank you for the faketty
> >> module,
> >> I stopped maintaining the ruby patch and was able to
> >> quickly
> >> restore my multihead machine after upgrading to FC5.
> >>
> >> I would like to know what do you think about the
> >> following modifications.
> >>
> >> - Instead of the "ftty%d" device names, use "tty%d",
> >>   count from the number of normal TTY devices and
> >> up,
> >>   e.g. ftty0 -> tty64, etc.
> >> - RC script now don't delete tty devices to create
> >> symlinks.
> >> - Also, RC script can use the "chkconfig" facility,
> >> use
> >>   "make install-service-rh" to install it that way.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Zolt=EF=BF=BDn B=EF=BF=BDsz=EF=BF=BDrm=EF=BF=BDnyi
> >
> > And the reason for changes? I kind of like it the way
> > it is.
> >
> > Hugo
>
> Reason #1: It's not really legal to delete device nodes that are
> controlled by another driver.

Driver didn't control device node, which is tricky access of
special features. Node was created by system operator (nowadays smart
script) can be deleted by system operator. Agree, deleting is not
correct against another drivers.
Of course faketty starting script created without long thinking.
Not once opened nodes deleted careless.

> Reason #2: Given #1 above, it would be more useful to just
> create links as /dev/tty64 and up and still have ftty devices.
> It would be best to use an udev rule, but I haven't seen any way
> to do it. E.g. suppose that SYMLINK command can use options,
> and %m gives you the minor number of the device it has just created,
> this latter being an existing udev feature. Now, a rule like this would d=
o:
> KERNEL=3D=3D"ftty" GROUP=3D"tty" MODE=3D"0660", SYMLINK=3D"tty(64+%m)"
>
> But you cannot really detect the maximum number of the TTY device nodes
> just by looking at them, something else may have deleted them, too.
> As I see now, the only reliable way to detect the next number is using
> "MAX_NR_CONSOLES + 1" for the running kernel.
> I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.

I suppose this is spliting of hairs. Should we ask for name to Linus
Torvald? i read out linux/Documentation/devices.txt again, but that does
not give solution for me. i have not plans to include faketty in
mainstream kernel. faketty have public release.

Aivils Stoss