Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: DRM Kernel Log Renderer Proposed For Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Yeah, I think you're right, mostly, and this led to my initial thought of protest. *However*, they seem not only to want to disable VT's but replace them, see "Combined with a proper user-space system-console". Technically it would be pretty interesting if VT-like functionality could be implemented completely in user-space using KMS. That way in-kernel functionality would simplify a lot and you might even get the accelerated non-graphical terminals back for free. (afaik currently VT's under KMS aren't properly accelerated which you typically don't notice if you use it for text only)
    That's exactly what KMSCON does, and it was written by the same author. It's a hardware-accelerated terminal with support for Unicode, internationalized keyboard support, video acceleration via OpenGL ES 2 and scalable fonts. It works without KMS support too, so it's a full replacement for this kernel code with the new log driver.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strcat View Post
    That's exactly what KMSCON does, and it was written by the same author.
    Altough true I think he's not going to work on KMSCON anymore. He did write systemd-consoled that's still work in-progress which could well become the default in many distributions in the future.

    ..duplicate kmscon?

    Well, I wrote that and I consider it a successfull research project. Now
    it's time to write something useful based on the lessons learned with
    kmscon. No first attempt ever succeeds, right?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Really good series of articles David wrote a while back on why we should be killing off the VT and session management: https://dvdhrm.wordpress.com/2013/08...ment-on-linux/

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    A longer and more detailed (or at least more text thats visible) crash output is a feature. Also, as I said above, its an issue of feature-parity.
    I was only kidding! But thanks for the explanation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •