[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290993244.877.3.camel@cai.gentoo>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:14:04 +0800
From: Microcai <microcai@...oraproject.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
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
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 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