From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757790Ab3LWTPZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:15:25 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:47361 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757372Ab3LWTPY (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:15:24 -0500 Message-ID: <52B88BB9.3070808@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:15:05 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Gladkov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , David Herrmann CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: VT Improvements References: <52B83457.8080907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52B83457.8080907@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/23/2013 05:02 AM, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > Greetings! > > I would like to know about the VT plans. Historically, keymap > implementations are similar in the kernel and kbd project. I rewrote > it in kbd. So, it can handle keycodes bigger than 255. In a kernel > everything remained as before. I want to fix this part in a kernel. As > pluses will be: > > * opportunity to define keycode > 255. > * opportunity to reduce this table a kernel in most cases. > > I would like to ask your opinion about my plans because I heard about > the thought of moving this functionality to user space. > > Whether it is worth starting so large-scale changes? > What I don't think we want to do is to make the current VT implementation in the kernel significantly bigger. That is why proposals to introduce bidirectionality or character shaping generally have not been accepted. If you can improve functionality with a *smaller* footprint, which you seem to imply above, then please, go ahead. -hpa