From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752146AbYITQsY (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:48:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750851AbYITQsP (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:48:15 -0400 Received: from shadow.wildlava.net ([67.40.138.81]:43012 "EHLO shadow.wildlava.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750786AbYITQsO (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:48:14 -0400 Message-ID: <48D5294B.2010804@skyrush.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:48:11 -0600 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix backspace on wrapped lines in console (virtual terminal) References: <48D5240D.7070701@skyrush.com> <20080920173822.51794923@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080920173822.51794923@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:25:49 -0600 > Joe Peterson wrote: > >> Attached is a patch that fixes virtual terminal problems when backspace >> is used on wrapped lines (see patch text for the specific issues). The >> issues can be demonstrated by trying two things in the console (vt): > > I would need to power up my vt420 to check (yes I have one lurking in a > corner!) but I have a feeling the current behaviour (not going up a line) > is correct for ansi type terminals. Would it still erase the actual characters input, though? This would cause one to believe they were not erased, since the visual feedback does not match... I wonder if "fixing" this in Linux would really break the needed vt hardware compatibility - maybe that case lies in the "undefined" area in a sense. What about the need_wrap (end of line) case - I wonder what the real vt420 does for that. If it doesn't match the behavior this patch "fixes", it would probably be a vt420 bug... Yes, these things are certainly getting harder to check against real hardware these days! :) -Joe