From: Dominik K. <dom...@un...> - 2000-03-08 10:35:12
|
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 04:38:31AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > OK. I think I have a minimal patch, equivalent to Dominik's 2.2.1 > patch, that works on the 2.2.12 console.c. This is a candidate for > Sapphire 1, but it's not tested yet; I should probably sleep before I > try rebuilding my kernel ;-). > > Dominik, am I correct in believing these are all of the functional > changes in the emulation? > > \E[6m blink added > \E[21m turn off 1 removed > 0x84 IND added > 0x85 NEL added > 0x88 HTS added > 0x8d RI added > \E[?6n DECXCPR added > \E[?15n Printer status added > \E[?25n UDK status added > \E[?26n Keyboard status added > \E[?75n Data integrity added > \E[x DECREQTPARM added > \E[ n k VPB added > \E[ n j HPB added > \E[ n I CHT added > \E[ n W CTC added (n=0, 2, 5) > \E[ n Y CVT added > \E[ n Z CBT added > \E[s DECRC removed > \E[u DECSC removed Looks like it. BTW i would prefer that you use the correct CSI instead of \E[, because \E[ is only the 7bit translation of the correct C1 control code. Of coures you would have to define the term "Control Sequence Introducer" before using it. And the page should mention how a valid ESCape and control has to look like. See the following references: ECMA-35 (ISO 2022), Section 13, "Structure and use of escape sequences" ECMA-48 (ISO 6429), Section 5.4, "Control sequences" > And, if I have it right, you didn't mess with anything that was > > (a) before the comment "VT102 emulator" > (b) after the end of do_con_trol (except for the ESnormal->ESinit > change in do_con_write). I think so, but i am not sure. I am just working on a 2.2.14 patch... > If so, then I have reduced the patch from 99K to 18K. I think this > makes it rather more likely to be accepted :-). We should also patch the MAINTAINERS file, shouldn't we? Dominik -- Networking Group, Hospital of Johannes Gutenberg-University Obere Zahlbacher Straße 69, 55101 Mainz, Germany Tel: +49 (0)6131 17-2482 FAX: +49 (0)6131 17-5521 |