Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?

From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen_at_grosbein.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 05:45:27 UTC 
22.06.2022 12:34, Warner Losh wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 10:59 PM Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu <mailto:sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:55:01PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>     > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 9:47 PM Stefan Blachmann <sblachmann@gmail.com <mailto:sblachmann@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > > I would kindly ask to stop pushing for removal of sc.
>     > >
>     >
>     > It will die soon enough if it doesn't become giant locked soon...
>     >
>     > Warner
>     >
> 
>     Are you deleting vt, too?
> 
> 
> The project likely has resources to remove giant from only one console driver. That will almost certainly be vt.

Then sc(4) should stay giant-locked until vt(4) implements all features called-for sc.
After all, sc is not network nor I/O "hot path".