[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: VT console need rewrite
在 2010-11-28日的 14:46 -0500,Ted Ts'o写道:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:20:07AM +0800, Microcai wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> Let's start by asking a much more fundamental question; what the heck
> are your goals?
> If the main goal of the console is emergency debugging when the system
> is in a very bad state (i.e., trashed initrd, etc.) do we really even
> need Unicode support?
> How many people do regular login, development, reading e-mail, etc.,
> on the console? Very few! If the answer is because you hate X, as
> you've already pointed out, we already have fbterm. Where is it
> written that we need to have a full unicode-capable console system?
> Why is this so important; especially if doing this is going to be very
> difficult, and risks breaking lots of stuff if we try to mess with it?
> - Ted

Hey, my old patch already did it , and do not break any old stuff.
Question is , the VT code *is really very old*.
Just want to simplify the code, remove old stuff, make it future
compatible. Forward compatibility is more important than backward one

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-29 02:15    [W:0.098 / U:9.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site