> > 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. > > This may make it possible to create an initial patch to do the split, > then work on the new system independently of the current vt system. > Hopefully reducing any problems with api/subsystem inconsistencies > breaking existing code elsewhere, by giving it time to adapt. > > This is guesswork on my part as I haven't actually looked at the code, > so while it sounds good in theory, you'd have to check if it's actually > doable. > Sounds like a good idea. Who is in charge of VT system ? Seems no one .... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-console" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
