Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mulga.SUN Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!mulga!kre From: kre@mulga.SUN (Robert Elz) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Disgusting kernel hack (really about stty's) Message-ID: <206@mulga.SUN> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 01:08:03 EST Article-I.D.: mulga.206 Posted: Tue Feb 7 01:08:03 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 00:33:01 EST References: <1151@pur-phy.UUCP> Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia Lines: 24 I too have been considering making stty be a per process change. (That is, after a TIOCSET[PN] (or TCSETA* for Sys III/V), the process would have its own set of tty modes, independant of those of its parent). Modes would be inherited from parent to child. There would need to be a new ioctl command, for processes like stty and tset to use, but there's nothing remarkable in that. (I would make the new commands the global ones, as there are only a few programs that wish to do global changes, but many whose changes are intended to be for this process only) The definition of a "global" change, would be one that would affect the process's parent's tty settings (and back up the tree, to the point where some process did a "local" change). I would make the entire set of terminal settable characteristics act on a per-process basis, not just an isolated one or two. That would be very hard to explain, etc, not at all "nice". I too would appreciate comments, preferably by mail. Robert Elz decvax!mulga!kre (kre@Berkeley works too)