Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems [was Re: Your opinion on the merge?]
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 05:30:21 EST
> >On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 18:22, Michael Frank wrote:
> >>Error messages should be handled on a seperate VT eliminating the issue.
> >While I definitely like the idea, I'm not sure that's feasible; as Pavel
> >pointed out, Suspend doesn't generate all the error messages that might
> >possibly appear. Maybe I'm just ignorant.. I'll take a look when I get
> >the change.
> printk is central and could do the switch when swsusp is active
You *could* do it, but it is bad idea. You don't want to patch
printk.c, that driver printk could be done from interrupt (and you
can't switch consoles at that point), you loose context, etc. What
about doing the simple thing, maybe hack with CRs and be done with
If someone wants more eye candy, they have to patch their kernel with
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
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/