Previously in commit 8674c044330fad1458bd59b02f9037fb97e8b7af stubs for
virtual terminals have been added, they support writes from kernel side
which simply drops into the void.
In the patch the code has been moved from kernel/ve/console.c
to drivers/tty/pty.c to reuse a couple of pty helpers.
No
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:10:49PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
> Index: linux-pcs7.git/drivers/tty/pty.c
> ===
> --- linux-pcs7.git.orig/drivers/tty/pty.c
> +++ linux-pcs7.git/drivers/tty/pty.c
> @@ -820,10 +820,566 @@ static voi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:00:28PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > +
> > +static struct file_operations vtty_fops;
> > +
> > +#define vtty_match_index(idx) ((idx) >= 0 && (idx) <
> > MAX_NR_VTTY_CONSOLES)
>
> nit: this line is longer than 80 symbols
yes, but recall that there is
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:40:32PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:00:28PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static struct file_operations vtty_fops;
> > > +
> > > +#define vtty_match_index(idx)((idx) >= 0 && (idx) <
> > > MAX_NR_VTTY_CONSOLES)
>
On 08/27/2015 07:11 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> Hmm, checkpatch still has max_line_length set to 80. Could you please
> share a link to this agreement?
It was long ago, a few maintainers said about own preference
(Ingo and Andrew iirc) if I manage to find it will send you
a link.
>> fine. Wo
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:11:28PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> Hmm, checkpatch still has max_line_length set to 80. Could you please
> share a link to this agreement?
>
> > fine. Wonder, do you really still sit on 80 chars terminal?
>
> I use a 12" laptop. With the window vertically split
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:24:15PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:11:28PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, checkpatch still has max_line_length set to 80. Could you please
> > share a link to this agreement?
> >
> > > fine. Wonder, do you really still sit on
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:12:39AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >
> > nb: you know, moving patches from mainline (slave lock) seems
> > to be not that simple, they introduced own new lock class for that.
> > at moment i think how to modify our vtty code without mangling
> > general tty code.
>
