COMPAT_43 tty processing ?

[Terry Lambert]

Tim Robbins <tjr at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:22:01PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <200406241859.54810.peter at wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes:
> > >On Wednesday 23 June 2004 04:27 pm, David Schultz wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > >> > Do we need the COMPAT_43 tty processing in 5-STABLE ?
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I used to run with COMPAT_43 disabled entirely.  I think the
> > >> only breakage I noticed was that the Linuxolator didn't work
> > >> anymore because of a number of `#ifdef COMPAT_43's in the socket
> > >> code that linux.ko depends on.
> > >
> > >These should probably be broken out as COMPAT_OLDSOCK, whih is implied 
> > >by the linuxulator or COMPAT_43 or the like.
> > 
> > Or better yet: made unncessary in the linuxolator ?
> 
> This is what NetBSD has done. At one stage I had patches derived from
> their code that removed the need for the COMPAT_43 socket functions,
> but COMPAT_43 was still necessary for ostat(), etc.

Please do not remove any code protected by COMPAT_43 which provides any of
the functionality listed on either of the following two standards document
references:

        http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/termios.h.html
        http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap11.html#tag_11

(Yes, I know that this code should not be inside COMPAT_43 protection, but
as far as I can tell, no on has disentagled it).

-- Terr