Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The State Of Killing CONFIG_VT, Moving To User-Space

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic The State Of Killing CONFIG_VT, Moving To User-Space

    The State Of Killing CONFIG_VT, Moving To User-Space

    Phoronix: The State Of Killing CONFIG_VT, Moving To User-Space

    David Herrmann is a student developer and one of the kernel developers that has been on a mission to kill off CONFIG_VT, a.k.a. the VT console within the Linux kernel, and move it off to user-space. He's contributed to various projects to further his ideas and now he's written a new post to provide an update on this matter and his thoughts on the current situation of Linux system compositors...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQwNTk

  • Rallos Zek
    replied
    Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
    The more I think about this, the more stupid it sounds.
    Aye! Its a an answer in search of a question that was never asked. But knowing Red Hat you will see in Fedora soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.
    eudev is still in good shape, the last commits only happened several days ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    I do remember that conversation.
    Okay at least I know I'm not going crazy XD

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
    back is bad wording on my part, but the topic of in-kernel udev came up back when the topic of in-kernel dbus came up. I don't know what ever came from that discussion (it was a dev who brought it up), I'm trying to track it down now.
    I do remember that conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.
    back is bad wording on my part, but the topic of in-kernel udev came up back when the topic of in-kernel dbus came up. I don't know what ever came from that discussion (it was a dev who brought it up), I'm trying to track it down now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
    Whats busybox gonna do when udev is moved back in kernel? Seems like that would conflict with mdev at that point...
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Maybe I got that wrong and confused VTs with TTYs.
    @Ericg: Busybox uses mdev, it also has its own init implementation, but I usually don't use that, since I don't have a need for runlevels and stuff, I use a custom script (running in ash, which also comes with Busybox) for initializing all of the system I need and do the tasks I need to do.
    If this is still working without having to add unnecessary complexity with this new approach, then I got this wrong and apologize. If this is not anymore possible it would be a shame.
    Whats busybox gonna do when udev is moved back in kernel? Seems like that would conflict with mdev at that point...

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Maybe I got that wrong and confused VTs with TTYs.
    @Ericg: Busybox uses mdev, it also has its own init implementation, but I usually don't use that, since I don't have a need for runlevels and stuff, I use a custom script (running in ash, which also comes with Busybox) for initializing all of the system I need and do the tasks I need to do.
    If this is still working without having to add unnecessary complexity with this new approach, then I got this wrong and apologize. If this is not anymore possible it would be a shame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by dvdhrm View Post
    Cheers
    David
    Was wondering when you'd show up haha, welcome back to the forums David :P

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X