Re: "Re: [PATCH 0/2] Colored kernel output (run2)" + "`Subject:' usage"

[Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:13:09PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 08:47:52PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 10/07/2007 06:12 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > >* Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > >>Coloring isn't useful. If it was, it would be implemented ~16 years
> > >>ago.
> > >
> > >Congratulations, this is the most stupid argument i've ever read on 
> > >lkml.
[]
> I would say that while I'm not particularly fond of flashy colors
> everywhere, I think that being able to use colors to indicate particular
> actions in progress or conditions can be a good thing. RAID errors,
> devices disabled due to command-line parameters, and general anomalies
> which can cause a hang or panic a few line laters are worth coloring.

That *is* the coloring, i'm talking about.

> And I don't believe in userland's help here, because for that type of
> messages, the indication should be returned immediately.

In the very buggy cases, i think, everything just hang. Otherwise
initramfs stuff can deal with it.

> For instance, anyone who has experienced read errors on and IDE disk
> knows that it can literally take hours/days to boot, after displaying
> thousands of messages. Here, having the ability to see that no IRQ was
> assigned or something like this could help.

As i'm pretty much in all that text(tty)-mode stuff anyway, maybe after
some time i will propose something klibc/tty based. Mainly a bit of user
interface: split scrolling regions for errors and notifications; flexible
color schemas (keyword highlighting); keyboard events. Of course it will
work in such IDE cases, only if driver is a module.
____