Re: Diff to show my work

[Petr V. <VAN...@vc...>]

On 14 Jun 00 at 9:47, James Simmons wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   is it complete diff between Linus/Alan tree and current linuxconsole
> > CVS or is it an addition to linuxconsole CVS (I did not look at patch
> > yet and because of I have no linuxconsole CVS copy here yet, I'm asking...) 
> 
> Its a diff against the current ruby tree. If it was against linus tree it
> would have been twice as big. 
> 
OK. Let's get it setup.

> > I think that for backward compatibility you should add new ioctl
> > OPENVT2, which opens VT on specific output device. Old code (simple
> > open /dev/tty* and OPENVT ioctl) should use same lowlevel device as
> > current->tty uses... I think... Probably with exception that if
> > current->tty is not VT, you should use first head (for use by init, for
> > example, which is connected to /dev/console).
> 
> I was thinking about that as well. I know we need a way to allocate more
> VCs for a head. Once we remove the 64 limit and we can use devfs to create
> VCs on the fly :) As for allocating VCs for a different head then we are
> on. Do we really need this? 

I think that doing open & con2fb is a bit inconvient. Also for some time
VT will exist on fb where you do not want it. But you are probably right -
- any user can open VT on own head, but only priviledged can do con2fb...

> > Create per-VT blanking timers which will expire individually and which
> > are restarted on keypress (on that VT) and console switch... Looks like
> > easiest solution to me. 
> 
> The problem is telling the blanking routines which head is the one to
> unblank. Right now I haven't seen away to do this. 
> 
If _visible_ VT blanks/unblanks, blank/unblank that FB. As one VT cannot
be on two FBs, there is trivial relation...

                                            Petr