H. Peter Anvin [hpa@xxxxxxxxx] wrote: > sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> TODO: >> - Remove even initial kernel mount of devpts ? (If we do, how >> do we preserve single-mount semantics) ? > > Doesn't make sense unless we decide to drop single-mount semantics in the > (far) future. As long as we have an instance that services unconnected ptmx > instances, it makes sense to have that instance available to the kernel at > all times. > > I don't like the name "newmnt" for the option; it is not just another > mount, but a whole new instance of the pty space. I agree. Its mostly a place-holder for now. How about newns or newptsns ? > > I observe you didn't incorporate my feedback with regards to get_node(). Yes, I have not addressed it yet. Will look into it in the next pass, but will add to the todo list now. > In this scheme, any and all uses of get_node() are bogus; as such, you're > missing the huge opportunity for cleanup that comes along with this whole > thing. > > This means breaking compatibility in one very minor way, which is if people > copy device nodes out of /dev/pts, but I am feeling pretty sure that that > is much better than carrying the ugliness that goes along with the current > code. Furthermore, if there are anyone who do something that silly, they > need to fix it anyway. > > The *entire* implementation of devpts_get_tty(), for example, should look > like: > > struct tty_struct *devpts_get_tty(struct inode *inode) > { > struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb; > > if (sb->s_magic == DEVPTS_SUPER_MAGIC) > return (struct tty_struct *)inode->i_private; > else > return NULL; /* Higher layer should return -ENXIO */ > } > > I really appreciate your tackling this implementation. > > -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers