Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, in looking at SysRq loglevel handling in
> > 2.4.9-ac (and 2.4.10-pre12), I see that it has been modified
> > quite a bit.  Looks extensible, which can be good.
> > However, looking over it gave me several nagging questions
> > and problems.
> >
> > If someone (Crutcher ?) wants to patch it, that's fine.
> > If I patched it, I would just add a
> >   next_loglevel = -1;
> > at the beginning of __handle_sysrq_nolock() and then
> > let the loglevel handler(s) set next_loglevel.
> > If next_loglevel != -1 at the end of __handle_sysrq_nolock(),
> > set console_loglevel to next_loglevel.
> 
> Send me a patch and cc Linus/Crutcher

Here's a patch to fix SysRq handling of console_loglevel.

Please apply to 2.4.10-pre12 and to 2.4.9-ac12.

Thanks,
~Randy