Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 16:28 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>> But how often do you have to debug bootloader or compressed boot code? In
>>> fact, most debug output like this isn't very useful after some initial
>>> debugging, so we usually take it out.
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 16:28 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > But how often do you have to debug bootloader or compressed boot code? In
> > fact, most debug output like this isn't very useful after some initial
> > debugging, so we usually take it out. I'm not sure why
On Friday, May 25, 2007 4:43:41 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Right, but you're special that way. And moreover, you would know how to
> > add such debug statements as needed. But is this output something we
> > really need enabled unconditionally for everyone?
>
> *I* can do tha
Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> Right, but you're special that way. And moreover, you would know how to add
> such debug statements as needed. But is this output something we really need
> enabled unconditionally for everyone?
>
*I* can do that, yes, but I usually don't have access to the platform i
On Friday, May 25, 2007 4:28:18 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > But how often do you have to debug bootloader or compressed boot code?
> > In fact, most debug output like this isn't very useful after some initial
> > debugging, so we usually take it out. I'm not sure why this woul
Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> But how often do you have to debug bootloader or compressed boot code? In
> fact, most debug output like this isn't very useful after some initial
> debugging, so we usually take it out. I'm not sure why this would be any
> different...
>
You're asking me this?
I ge
On Friday, May 25, 2007 12:45:40 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:33 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because there's no other way to make the kernel totally quiet. We've
> > been patching this out so
Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:33 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because there's no other way to make the kernel totally quiet. We've
> been patching this out so that the boot sequence has that "clean look".
>
> Other than that,
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:33 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Why?
Because there's no other way to make the kernel totally quiet. We've
been patching this out so that the boot sequence has that "clean look".
Other than that, it's useless :)
--
Ubuntu : h
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why?
-Andi
-
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/
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:59:10 -0400
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Updated to include proper spacing for putstr() macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/i386/Kconfig.debug|6 ++
> arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c |8 +---
> a
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:59:10 -0400 Ben Collins wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
> b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
> index b28505c..cc630d5 100644
> --- a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
> +++ b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
> @@ -278,6 +277,9 @@ static void putstr(con
Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/Kconfig.debug|6 ++
arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c |8 +---
arch/x86_64/Kconfig.debug |6 ++
arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.c |8 +---
4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deleti
13 matches
Mail list logo
