Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: Postmaster@locke.bitnet (PMDF Mail Server)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Undeliverable mail
Message-ID: <849@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 18 Dec 87 18:17:32 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 37

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: MINIX
Reason:
  %MAIL-E, no such user MINIX at node LOCKE

----------------------------------------

Received: from JNET-DAEMON by locke.hs.washington.edu; Fri, 18 Dec 87 09:50 PST
Received: From NDSUVM1(MAILER) by UWALOCKE with RSCS id 3164 for
 MINIX@UWALOCKE; Fri, 18 Dec 87 09:50 PST
Received: by NDSUVM1 (Mailer X1.24) id 3117; Fri, 18 Dec 87 11:13:08 CST
Date: 17 Dec 87 17:48:35 GMT
From: Freeman Pascal <ncpascal@ndsuvax.uucp>
Subject: Bug in my ttyname(3)!
Sender: Minix operating system <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1>
To: Local Redistribution <MINIX@locke>
Reply-to: INFO-MINIX@UDEL.edu
Comments: To: info-minix@UDEL.EDU

Hello,
    In my past posting for tty(1) I inadvertently allowed a bug to get
past me.  Here are the diffs to fix ttyname(3).  The ttyname(3) I posted
will work only because of the way U**X and MINIX set up their directory
structure and where they place their devices.  This fix will check if
the devices are also the same and keep ttyname() honest.

                Freeman P. Pascal IV
                ncpascal@ndsuvax

--------------------------  Cut here for diff  -------------------------------

64c64,65
<     if ( dev_stat.st_ino == fd_stat.st_ino ) {
---
>     if (( dev_stat.st_ino == fd_stat.st_ino ) &&
>         (dev_stat.st_dev == fd_stat.st_dev)) {