On Ät 25-03-04 06:46:12, Michael Frank wrote:May I request that you leave the authors headers intact when quoting. Thank
As you wish.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:17:04 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>So why aren't you arguing against bootsplash too? That definitely
>>>>obscures such an error :> Of course we could argue that such an error
>>>>shouldn't happen and/or will be obvious via other means (assuming it
>>>>indicates hardware failure).
>>>Of course I *am* against bootsplash. Unfortunately I've probably lost
>>>that war already. But at least it is not in -linus tree (and that's
>>>what I use anyway) => I gave up with bootsplash-equivalents, as long
>>>as they don't come to linus.
>>>[And I believe Linus would shoot down bootsplash-like code, anyway.]
Why? Joe consumer wants it.
As to the ever growing size of the kernel, there could be a official
tree with non-core functions maintained by a seperate maintainer. Things
debuggers, profiling or (swsusp) debug support could go there as
Yes, having -nice patch with bootsplashes, translated kernel messages,
and swsusp eye-candy would work for me.
Feel free to maintain it.
>>Solution: Auto switch to non-swsusp VT on error showing the error message.
>Hmm, at that point you loose context, like now you know what error
>happened, but do not know at which phase of suspend. That's pretty bad
Right, Good idea! Just print always "ugly" swsusp context on a text VT -
error messages - and switch over to this VT in printk when not in interrupt
context. 10 lines of code or so in printk ;)
You see, 10 lines in printk is probably good enough reason not to
include that patch in kernel, because its "too ugly".
Plus it does not work if printk _was_ from interrupt context.
swsusp really should not have patch any code outside kernel/power.