Re: [PATCH] vt: Add enable module parameter

[Jocelyn Falempe]

On 26/01/2026 11:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:48:50AM +0100, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
> > On 26/01/2026 11:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:43:35AM +0100, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
> > > > On 26/01/2026 10:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:21:50AM +0100, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
> > > > > > This allows to build the kernel with CONFIG_VT enabled, and choose
> > > > > > on the kernel command line to enable it or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This says what is happening, but not why?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Add vt.enable=1 to force enable, or vt.enable=0 to force disable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we using a 1990's technology for a new feature?  What is this
> > > > > going to allow to have happen?  Who needs/wants this?  Who will use it?
> > > > > For what?
> > > >
> > > > The goal is to ease the transition to disable CONFIG_VT.
> > > >
> > > > So if this is merged, you can boot without VT on any Linux distribution,
> > > > without rebuilding the kernel.
> > >
> > > But that's a distro-specific thing, the distro should be enabling or
> > > disabling the option as it needs, it should not be a user-configurable
> > > boot-time selection option as userspace depends entirely on this either
> > > being there or not.  Why would you have a kernel with both options but
> > > userspace without that?
> >
> > Actually the userspace side works with or without VT, at least with Fedora,
> > I've my Gnome session in both cases.
>
> Great!  Then why is this even needed?  Who wants such a "let's not make
> up our mind until we boot" type of system?
>
> Given that traditionally the command line is a "secure" thing, that is
> locked down by distros and orginizations, who would ever be able to be
> changing this type of thing?  Who would want to support userspace that
> handles both at the same time?
>
> I don't see the issue here, if a distro doesn't want to support VT, then
> disable it in the kernel and all is good.  If they do want to support
> it, than enable it.  Don't do both :)

Maybe the real issue is that VT cannot be built as a module.
That way the userspace would be able to load it only if it needs it.

That's probably more complex than my 3 lines patch, but I can try.
Would you prefer it that way?


> thanks,
>
> greg k-h