On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 10:02:54PM -0800, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> 
> > What exactly is the excuse why vesafb must (according to you, and
> > evidently Michael too) not work that way?  The fact that it can't is
> > responsible for a major longstanding security hole in the i386 port.
> 
> the "fb" in "vesafb" stands for framebuffer, which by definition is
> _not_ a text mode.
> 
> there exist VESA text modes; perhaps this is confusing you?

Uh, no.  Your strange idea that the limitiations of the code currently
in the tree somehow represent a design ideal rather than a design mistake,
on the other hand -- that really _does_ confuse me.

It is not exactly clear to me why you think (as evinced above) that
drivers with 'fb' in the name should omit support for character-cell
modes that are mandatory features of the hardware in question...

Thor