å 2010-11-28æç 14:46 -0500ïTed Ts'oåéï > 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 -- 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
