Re: [RFC v2] kernel/printk.c - handling more than one CON_BOOT

[Robin Getz]

On Wed 1 Jul 2009 17:01, Andrew Morton pondered:
> > > I think it would be useful if we had a description of the new
> > > design, similar to your description of the "Today" behaviour
> > > above.  Perhaps as a comment over register_console()?
> > 
> > Can do - do you want it as v3 or on-top of this one?
> 
> I'm easy either way.  Ingo might have applied to one of his trees, in
> which case a replacement patch might cause him problems, dunno.

Ingo? I'm OK with either way.


> > > > This changeset allows multiple boot consoles, and changes the
> > > > functionality to, be mostly the same as the above.
> > > >  - Any number CON_BOOT consoles of can be registered
> > > >  - A "real" console will unregister all the CON_BOOT consoles
> > > >  - Once a "real" console is registered, no more CON_BOOT consoles 
> > > >    can be added (still silently rejected)
> > > 
> > > Is the "silent" rejection desirable?  Perhaps that's a
> > > programming/configuration error which the developer should be
> > > informed of?
> > 
> > That is what it is today. I would actually prefer not silent - as it 
> > would have meant 10 min that I would have saved myself trying to
> > figure out what was going on... :)
> > 
> > But when I was figuring out how things worked, and had a few too many
> > printks in register_console - I was getting BUG: "recent printk
> > recursion!" - so I just left it silent (rather than figuring this out).
> 
> OK - I was just wondering.   Whatever you think is best..

There is a difference between best and lazy. I picked lazy.

I will see if I can figure it out.

--
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/