*BSD News Article 18220


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!thumper.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: vax@thumper.cc.utexas.edu (Vax)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Slcompress -- enforce HW flow-control, patch
Date: 10 Jul 1993 16:56:35 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <21nduj$g4a@thumper.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <21f6er$2v7@max.in-berlin.de> <21ffi4$i46@sylvester.cc.utexas.edu> <21hgue$5fg@max.in-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thumper.cc.utexas.edu

In article <21hgue$5fg@max.in-berlin.de> berry@max.IN-Berlin.DE (Stefan Behrens) writes:
>You mix up two things. The device names `cua01' and `ttyd1' for the
>same device have nothing to do with the flow stuff. `cua0?' is the
>port for callouts (tip(1) or uucico(8)), `ttyd?' is for incoming calls
>(getty(8)).
No, I'm not mixing them up, they use the same device on most systems
(call ins and call outs) and so if one is locked and the other
is not there can be conflicts.  This situation in particular
is not a good example, but when people have, say, links from /dev/lp
to /dev/lpt if two programs use the different names there will be 
contention problems still.
I was talking of the more general case.
-- 
Protect our endangered bandwidth - reply by email.  NO BIG SIGS!
VaX#n8 vax@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu - finger for more info if you even care.