Re: VT console need rewrite

> 
> 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 ....

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-console" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html