MORE 6386 UUCP WOES ...
Every system needs one
terry at wsccs.UUCP
Sun Oct 30 09:57:30 AEST 1988
In article <16509 at onfcanim.UUCP>, dave at onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes:
> In article <727 at wsccs.UUCP> terry at wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one) writes:
> >
> >The general UNIX implementation of modem-control devices is that of setting
> >either bit 6 or 7 of the minor device number. To find out for sure
> >which should be used on your system, check sio(7) in your manual. In
> >general, if the minor device is greater than 64, it's a modem control
> >device.
>
> I don't know about system V UNIXes, but on all of the older UNIX versions
> plus the BSD variants, the default device supported modem control - it's
> the only sane way to handle dialins.
Unfortunately this is not true. BSD, particular on Sun systems, requires a
kernel reconfiguration to properly handle modem control on a port. The port
is useless without proper modem signals unless configured back. I have manual
pages for a Sun 3 and references in sio(7) in the Sun manual and management
guides. I also have specific release notes dealing with this.
> Sometimes an upper bit in the minor devices was used to add a "nowait"
> device, that allowed you to talk to the modem without waiting for
> Carrier Detect, but this is not always present.
The nowait feature is built into the O_NDELAY open flag; using the minor device
bit 6 or 7 for this behaviour only ocassionally would be wrong.
> Maybe it is just Xenix that gives you no modem control by default?
> This is pretty brain-damaged behaviour.
All system V systems and all Berk systems I am familair with (Digital, Sun,
Icon, etc) work this way.
A modem control device is one where an open hangs until modem control signals
are asserted. A non-modem control device is one where the open completes
without those signals being asserted.
Any installation which is using a stright 3-wire cable to their terminals is
using a non-modem control port or they have hacked the computer end of the
cable to force DCD and possibly CTS/RTS if it is a system V system with
AT&T's 3B2-style drivers.
Please examine tty.c for the comment "partial open hack" in your UNIX source.
The 20 or so lines on either side will be enlightening.
| Terry Lambert UUCP: ...{ decvax, uunet } ...utah-cs!century!terry |
| @ Century Software OR: ...utah-cs!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry |
| SLC, Utah |
| These opinions are not my companies, but if you find them |
| useful, send a $20.00 donation to Brisbane Australia... |
| 'I have an eight user poetic liscence' - me |
More information about the Comp.sys.att
mailing list