This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change

From: egor duda <deo at logos-m dot ru>
To: Steve O <bub at io dot com>
Cc: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:14:27 +0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
Organization: deo
References: <20020924015053.A21742@eris.io.com><20020924092143.J29920@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20020924143723.GB918@redhat.com><20020924105431.A3758@fnord.io.com>
Reply-to: egor duda <cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com>

Hi!

Tuesday, 24 September, 2002 Steve O bub@io.com wrote:

SO> I was thinking about the deadlock problem some more last night,
SO> and it occured to me that if termios processing were done on 
SO> the slave side, some of the buffering and tricky bits of 
SO> flushing the write buffer would go away (maybe).  And you wouldn't
SO> need this patch.

What do you mean exactly by "termios processing"?

And did you take into account the possibility that process which owns
slave side of tty forks and child gets handle to slave too. Then child
does some "termios processing". Will parent use old or new termios
settings?

Egor.            mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
  - From: Steve O

References:
- [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
  - From: Steve O
- Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
  - From: Corinna Vinschen
- Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: [PATCH] fhandler_tty doecho change
  - From: Steve O

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]