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 -- 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
