lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Boot Consoles question...

* Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> wrote:

> On Fri 10 Jul 2009 06:28, Ingo Molnar pondered:
> >
> > * Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat 4 Jul 2009 12:07, Robin Getz pondered:
> > > > On Sat 4 Jul 2009 06:29, Ingo Molnar pondered:
> > > > > Could be changed i guess ... but is it really an issue?
> > > >
> > > > It is just a change from "normal" (when the kernel has no boot
> > > > console).
> > > >
> > > > > One artifact
> > > > > could be manual scroll-back - it would perhaps be nice indeed to
> > > > > allow the scrollback to the top of the bootlog.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > > >
> > > > One of my thoughts (was since CON_PRINTBUFFER isn't used after
> > > > register_console()) - was for the CON_BOOT's CON_PRINTBUFFER flag to
> > > > control the clearing of the CON_PRINTBUFFER for the real console or
> > > > not...
> > > >
> > > > All early_printk consoles that I looked at have their
> > > > CON_PRINTBUFFER set.
> > > >
> > > > Which means that something like should do the trick -- allow people
> > > > who want
> > > > to override things to do so, and still have the today's setup work
> > > > as is...
> > >
> > > I guess no one liked that idea?
> >
> > No, this means no-one objected :)
>
> Silence is consensus?

No - silence is 'no objections expressed'. That doesnt make a change
agreed on, it makes a change "not objected to so far" ;-) It could
still be wrong, the onus is on you and me to make sure that isnt the
case.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-10 18:11    [W:0.332 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site