2010/8/25 Greg KH gre...@suse.de:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:51:52AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Seriously, look at how Fedora 14 handles this, why can't you do the same
for embedded systems all from userspace, no additional code needed
anywhere.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
Samo sometimes ago I gave
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:12, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:22:21AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
No, it does cover that. You should be able to do that with a simple
console redirection to /dev/kmsg What happened when you tried to do
that?
stty: standard input:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:40, Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:12, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:22:21AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
No, it does cover that. You should be able to do that with a simple
console redirection to /dev/kmsg
Do you want to be able to flip between a real debug interface and a
logging device on the same software set without risking changing behaviour
I don't understand this point.
A tty has a very specific set of behaviours simply by being a tty. Some
applications rely upon them so being able to
That's one extra process, not that much, right?
About 150K or so way too much and its not robust.
Fair enough. So, with this driver, would it make sense for the distros
to switch over to using it instead of the above line in their initrd?
Distros no - I doubt any normal PC distro
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:14:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
That's one extra process, not that much, right?
About 150K or so way too much and its not robust.
Fair enough. So, with this driver, would it make sense for the distros
to switch over to using it instead of the above line
On 25.08.2010 Greg KH wrote:
Samo, care to resend the patch?
Sure, here it is:
---
I hope that this TTY driver is ok for merging. It is very basic -
removed all flow control and rate limiting. Patch has been generated
against 2.6.34 kernel version.
Ttyprintk is a pseudo TTY driver, which
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:16:47 -0700
Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:14:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
That's one extra process, not that much, right?
About 150K or so way too much and its not robust.
Fair enough. So, with this driver, would it make
