[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101128194624.GP2767@thunk.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:46:24 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Microcai <microcai@...oraproject.org>
Cc: Lisa Milne <lisa@...net.com>,
"jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-console@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VT console need rewrite
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists