Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-25 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening /dev/console fails and any applications inherited from init have no standard

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:31:48 -0700 David VomLehn dvoml...@cisco.com wrote: Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Alan Stern
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: If we want b) then how to do it? One possibility: the initcalls have been completed when init_post() is called. How about: if one of those initcalls will be asynchronously registering a console, it should inform the console layer about this. It

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: If we want b) then how to do it? One possibility: the initcalls have been completed when init_post() is called. How about: if one of those initcalls will be

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
Personally, I'm in favor of adding a boot parameter. Things could be simplified slightly by treating a negative value (or a missing value) as indicating an infinite timeout; then only one new parameter would be needed instead of two. I'm allergic to the idea of a user interface using

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:14:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: ... What if a subsystem simply doesn't know in advance whether or not it's going to register a console? Or doesn't know when it has finished

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:35:00 -0700 David VomLehn dvoml...@cisco.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:14:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: ... What if a subsystem simply doesn't know in advance whether or

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:35:00PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote: With USB, you just can't *ever* get it right. There is no limit on how long a device has to tell you its there. I wish this weren't the case, but our good friends in the USB world tell us that we have been lucky to have had USB

[Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-17 Thread David VomLehn
Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening /dev/console fails and any applications inherited from init have no standard in/out/error

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
David VomLehn wrote: + consoledelay=mS [KNL] Wait up to mS milliseconds for the a preferred + console to be registered, then continue. Useful for + systems where a console may not be plugged in, such as + for USB serial