On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 01:33, Michael Kerrisk man-pages via
austin-group-l at The Open Group <austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/9/20 1:18 AM, Larry Dwyer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > How about the "control" side and the "terminal" side (of the paired
> > device files)?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. As far as I'm concerned, that would
> also be an option worth considering.
I work on the illumos project and a few of us have been having a
(not yet public) discussion about this lately as well. I think the
best one we could think of was:
the "control" side for the result of posix_openpt()
the "subordinate" side for the result of ptsname() and open(),
"/dev/pts" still makes sense, etc
we would rename our "/dev/ptmx" device file the "manager
driver" rather than the "master"
We would strongly consider using the same shift as other projects,
but I think only if they actually make sense; e.g., the "terminal"
and "pseudoterminal" end doesn't really stand out as completely
clear.
Cheers.
--
Joshua M. Clulow
http://blog.sysmgr.org
