On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Dominik Kubla <dominik.kubla@uni-mainz.de> wrote:
> > RTFM:
> > setterm -blank 0
>
> I admit that is one possible solution, but would their be much saving in terms
> of kernel size if the blanking code was not included in kernels where it was
> not wanted?
Negligable, less than 1k i would guess. As for performance gain due to
shorter console handler: i would be surprised if you could even get a
meaningful measurement.
I would even go in the other direction and add a procfs entry
(presumably /proc/sys/dev/tty/blank or something similar) in order to
supplement the IOCTL mechanismn which applies just to the selected tty,
while SYSCTL/PROCFS would apply to the driver = all tty's to be opened
during runtime.
Dominik Kubla
-- Networking Group, Hospital of Johannes Gutenberg-University Obere Zahlbacher Straße 69, 55101 Mainz, Germany Tel: +49 (0)6131 17-2482 FAX: +49 (0)6131 17-5521- 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 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:31 EST