Re: [PATCH] CON_BOOT

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:09:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It doesn't sound terribly important - I was just curious, thanks.  We can
> let this one be demand-driven.

OK, thanks ;-)

> 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?

You're spot on, we get no info.  That's why there's a bunch of kludges
around, mostly called early_printk.  But most people use x86 and they
get console output sufficiently early anyway because they know their
serial port is at 0x3f8 ...

I just realised that with CON_BOOT, we could actually get rid of the
__con_initcall loop in tty_io.c and let all the horrible early serial
console stuff disappear.

This console stuff really needs a dedicated maintainer ... wonder if
we can find a sucker ...

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain