Le lundi 20 décembre 2021 à 16:43 +0100, Greg KH a écrit : > On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 04:57:56PM +0100, Mathieu Peyrega wrote: > > Le vendredi 03 décembre 2021 à 14:11 +0100, Greg KH a écrit : > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:56:10AM +0100, Mathieu Peyrega wrote: > > > > > I don't fully understand the point. Isn't the existing pps_ldisc > > module > > already affecting the whole system ? (with it's builtin fixed > > "options"). How different tunable options such as the proposal make > > things fundamentally different ? Still I agree that per device > > settings > > would be better. > > Per device settings are required, this would prevent multiple devices > working in the same system, one using the existing line discipline > functionality, and one with your new changes. Is this per device settings requierement valid also for a new line discipline module or is it acceptable if a new "module level settable" linee discipline module has also a global behaviour (as current one) ?If per tty device setting is requiered pointers/doc on possible exemples/mecanismes to achieve this are welcome. > > I can retry on this track. However I believe , it will also need > > support from userland utility (especially ldattach). I don't know > > if > > this kind of consequences is in the scope of the discussion here. > > Why would userspace need to be modified? You're right, I initialy thought that ldattach support would be requiered ( https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/blob/master/sys-utils/ldattach.c as for the drivers list) but after first tests on a separate module, it's still possible to use ldattach as is with the new line discipine index. Only support for using the module name as argument is requierement which is not blocking. > > Try this as a new line discipline, should be much easier and simpler > overall for everyone. I have been working a little on this already, was waiting for list comments/answers to proceed further. Is there a prefered name as the module is mostly a clone of the pps- ldisc current one one with first patch changes ? I went for ppsex-ldisc for now. Is it Ok to share & modify the C structures of pps-ldisc (especially tty_ldisc_ops as per initially proposed patch) or should a full new set also be added ? Regards, Mathieu Peyrega
