Where is this patch? The work looks like the stuff I did a few years ago.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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/
>
-
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/
