lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: VT console need rewrite
From
Date

>
> Another possible model: split the current system in 2, so there's a
> bytestream handler, and a vt-legacy module. Then use the interface
> between bytestream/legacy as an interface for future vt-kernel and
> vt-user modules.

this may cause early printk stop working.

>
> This may make it possible to create an initial patch to do the split,
> then work on the new system independently of the current vt system.
> Hopefully reducing any problems with api/subsystem inconsistencies
> breaking existing code elsewhere, by giving it time to adapt.
>
> This is guesswork on my part as I haven't actually looked at the code,
> so while it sounds good in theory, you'd have to check if it's actually
> doable.
>

Sounds like a good idea. Who is in charge of VT system ? Seems no
one ....



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-28 17:21    [W:0.142 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site