From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: VT console need rewrite Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:46:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20101128194624.GP2767@thunk.org> References: <1290941875.13526.15.camel@cai.gentoo> <73BC440E-833E-4E1B-ACCC-5D68BAB89D83@mit.edu> <1290951770.13526.18.camel@cai.gentoo> <20101129020610.7ea7c79e.lisa@ltmnet.com> <1290961207.13526.31.camel@cai.gentoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1290961207.13526.31.camel@cai.gentoo> Sender: linux-console-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Microcai Cc: Lisa Milne , "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-console@vger.kernel.org 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