Mike (mwester) wrote: > I propose four variants to fix this problem in a manner that will resolve > the objections presented by the earlier patches.
Nice work, thanks a lot ! 1) seems a bit radical to me, but 2) through 4) all look reasonable, with a slight preference for either 2) or 4), because they degrade more gracefully if there's a stray printk being sent where it doesn't belong (e.g., to GSM). Leaving the decision to Ben sounds fair to me. > Also, if the [timeout] value is to be configurable (kconfig?), I was actually thinking of sysfs or, better, a boot parameter. Thanks, - Werner
