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-console" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html