lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
    Jan Engelhardt wrote:
    > On Dec 16 2007 20:18, Alan Cox wrote:
    >>> Why tax other people with a warning/hang etc. in printk when the
    >>> problem is very unlikely on their systems?
    >> I think there is sense in it if you do it subtly differently.
    >>
    >> printk(".. if this hangs do ... \r");
    >> edd_stuff();
    >> printk(" \r");
    >>
    >>
    >> So that we display it, do the EDD call, then write over it with whatever
    >> is next that matters.
    >
    > Does printk support escape sequences? The last time I tried
    > printk("\e[1;35m omg ponies \e[0m"); that did not went too successful.
    >

    Uh, no. Do that and anyone trying to interpret logs will beat you to
    death with a pickled herring.

    -hpa


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-18 00:31    [W:0.020 / U:3.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site