Re: something funny about tty's on 2.6.4-rc1-mm1

[H. Peter Anvin]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Will patching in the old behavior wrt re-use, while not disrupting
> > > the other improvements, be a lot of work?  I've looked thru the src, 
> > > but haven't yet spotted the point where the new pis number is chosen.
> >
> > Not a lot of work, but the performance would suffer big time.
>
> The (untested) first-fit patch I proposed uses a radix tree, so it should
> in fact be faster than the old code.
>
> Are you now thinking that we might need to change the pty allocator?

I don't; I think this is a total joke.  The utmp issue is a more severe 
one; it might be reason to stick to the old behaviour at least for 2.6.

Linear scan of utmp and not removing entries on logout is clearly bad 
chicken.  Effectively utmp seems to be tied to the current structure, 
mostly because it tries to go beyond it -- it's so bad at doing so that 
it actually *causes* problems!

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/