RFC: Remove pty(4)

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
In message <20141127095229.GO17068 at kib.kiev.ua>, Konstantin Belousov writes:

>On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00:14 AM Davide Italiano wrote:
>> >> One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning mechanism
>> >> entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still relying
>> >> on such mechanism.
>Why this is good thing to do ?

I must have missed this detail back in august.

I checked my archive of incoming email and I couldn't find any
reason or argument for removing dev_clone mechanism, and I would
very much object to its removal, unless a very compelling reason
exists ?

I'll admit that the name is slightly misleading, it is really
a "dev_ondemand" facility which can also be used for cloning,
and because all the initial uses were cloning it got that name.

(I have no soft feelings for the pty driver)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.