Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:27:09 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |