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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site