In char/vt.c, if I were to modify the call to vc_resize_all()
below....
case VT_RESIZE:
{
struct vt_sizes *vtsizes = (struct vt_sizes *) arg;
ushort ll,cc;
if (!perm)
return -EPERM;
i = verify_area(VERIFY_READ, (void *)vtsizes, sizeof(struct vt_sizes));
if (i)
return i;
get_user(ll, &vtsizes->v_rows);
get_user(cc, &vtsizes->v_cols);
return vc_resize_all(ll, cc);
}
... to read "return vc_resize(ll, cc, console, console);" in
order to have only the current console resized instead of every
one of them, what would the repercussions possibly be? Should I
also modify the IOCTL below it (VT_RESIZEX)? And, would any
other major mod be needed in the kernel for it to work properly?
I've examined console.c, and vt.c, among many other files, and
did a fair amount of rgrep()ing on the source, and the only code
I find that accesses vc_resize() is vc_resize_all() implying that
the kernel contains no method of resizing a single console
exported to userland, however the framework is there in
vc_resize().
If my above code mod assumption works, then what would it
potentially cause problems with in userland?
Should I create a new ioctl()? VT_RESIZE_CUR?
Keep in mind, these modifications are for my use only. I am not
intending on them making the official kernel, so a semi-hack is
fine.
Any advice appreciated.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateSuspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:10 EST