Re: VT console need rewrite

Microcai
2010-11-29T01:12:55Z

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