Re: [PATCH] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn'trequire a VT_RELDISP ioctl call

[Alan Cox]

> 1. VT_AUTO doesn't send signals to anything when a VT switch happens, precisely
>    because VT_AUTO is supposed to be used in the case where there's nothing to
>    send signals TO (i.e. the VT is managed by the kernel). The X server still
>    needs to know about VT switches to turn input devices off and such.

Ok..

> VT_ACKACQ, it wouldn't really make sense for there to be a new VT_ACKACQ value,
> because VT_ACKACQ is something which gets passed to a VT_RELDISP, and VT_RELDISP
> isn't needed at all in this new mode.

I don't want to change the existing values as they are somewhat visible
to user space.

> I hope that clarifies things.

Yes. You could use the VT_EVENT facility for the switch monitoring but
the asynchronous nature of the reporting probably isn't what is needed
for input device switching etc.

Looks fine to me - just bump the value and resubmit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/