From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Microcai Subject: Re: VT console need rewrite Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:42:50 +0800 Message-ID: <1290951770.13526.18.camel@cai.gentoo> References: <1290941875.13526.15.camel@cai.gentoo> <73BC440E-833E-4E1B-ACCC-5D68BAB89D83@mit.edu> Reply-To: microcai@fedoraproject.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:from:reply-to :to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E9vOOqSDYeDMD6JeZOcCru+66TN6RD5NAzg+uOp1/to=; b=WySAbl9+v95ktdxOHUq4hp/ocsVRc/i+MIJPLXwF/2hBDJTs/SGiQdxz+ij7cP8J70 8EoVDUEydUFoSbY0WyMHUrXmgf5UHVDouJ2Qo5+Cr/WIZTUZ/bLHgCUCOAnxPJW3DyRd nIba8Cgf/48b1WO93tECckdzeWdzeS4pjBoHI= In-Reply-To: <73BC440E-833E-4E1B-ACCC-5D68BAB89D83@mit.edu> Sender: linux-console-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Theodore Tso Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-console@vger.kernel.org =E5=9C=A8 2010-11-28=E6=97=A5=E7=9A=84 08:24 -0500=EF=BC=8CTheodore Tso= =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Microcai wrote: >=20 > > Hi, there > >=20 > > I'm implementing the UNICODE font of the framebuffer console, (see > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/26/50 in case you do not got my email)= =2E But > > current vt code is too bugy, too many direct assumes about vt buffe= r, > > This makes me so hard to hack. There is TODO telling me to add UNI= CODE > > support, but no room for such code, that's why my patch is so trick= y. > >=20 > > And the code itself, if you'll excuse me, it isn't as beautiful as= rest > > of the kernel. > > So, it really really need a clean rewrite.I'm ganna take is hard j= ob.=09 > > And, please tell me if is worth to do so. >=20 > Yes, the console is code is very old. But please be aware that lots= of code (both in the kernel and in userspace) has dependencies upon ho= w the code behaves. So changing it in a way that does not break backw= ards compatibility is hard. i.e., it is hard to hack for a reason. >=20 > I would recommend an incremental rewrite (i.e., one patch at a time),= as opposed to a rewrite from scratch. Because people will want to be= assured that things haven't broken in a horrible way as a result of a = complete rewrite... >=20 > -- Ted >=20 Yeah, I'd also like to rewrite it incrementally. But... who will accept that incrementally patch ? It just seems that incremental patch will be horrible at the beginning...... It will be discard without a reason ..... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-console= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html