Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:08:09 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |