Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it's doable
> if we do something like:
>
> - Add an int (*takeover)(struct console *); to struct console
> - Replace the hunk above with:
>
> for (existing = console_drivers; existing; existing = existing->next) {
> if (existing->takeover && existing->takeover(console)) {
> unregister_console(existing);
> console->flags &= ~CON_PRINTBUFFER;
> }
> }
>
> That puts the onus on the early console to be able to figure out
> whether a registering console is its replacement or not; for the x86_64
> early_printk, that'd be as simple as comparing the ->name against "ttyS"
> or "tty". It'll be a bit more tricky for PA-RISC, but would solve some
> messiness that we could potentially have. I think that's doable; want
> me to try it?
It doesn't sound terribly important - I was just curious, thanks. We can
let this one be demand-driven.
I'm surprised that more systems don't encounter this - there's potentially
quite a gap between console_init() and the bringup of the first real
console driver. What happens if we crash in mem_init()? Am I misreading
the code, or do we just get no info?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
