Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:54:00 +0000 (GMT) | From | James Simmons <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CON_BOOT |
| |
Where is this patch? The work looks like the stuff I did a few years ago.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote: > > > > I think it's doable > > if we do something like: > > > > - Add an int (*takeover)(struct console *); to struct console > > - Replace the hunk above with: > > > > for (existing = console_drivers; existing; existing = existing->next) { > > if (existing->takeover && existing->takeover(console)) { > > unregister_console(existing); > > console->flags &= ~CON_PRINTBUFFER; > > } > > } > > > > That puts the onus on the early console to be able to figure out > > whether a registering console is its replacement or not; for the x86_64 > > early_printk, that'd be as simple as comparing the ->name against "ttyS" > > or "tty". It'll be a bit more tricky for PA-RISC, but would solve some > > messiness that we could potentially have. I think that's doable; want > > me to try it? > > It doesn't sound terribly important - I was just curious, thanks. We can > let this one be demand-driven. > > I'm surprised that more systems don't encounter this - there's potentially > quite a gap between console_init() and the bringup of the first real > console driver. What happens if we crash in mem_init()? Am I misreading > the code, or do we just get no info? > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |