Re: [PATCH] hvc_vio: Do not override preferred console set by kernel parameter

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:55:40AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 17:24 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > The original version of this was done by Bastian Blank, who wrote:
> > 
> > > The problem is the following:
> > > - Architecture specific code sets preferred console to something bogus.
> > > - Command line handling tries to set preferred console but is overruled
> > >   by the old setting.
> > > 
> > > The udbg0 console is a boot console and independant.
> > 
> > References: http://bugs.debian.org/492703
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> > ---
> > We've been carrying this in Debian for 5 years now, so it's about time
> > it got reviewed.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced strstr() is the right way to check the command line
> > (what if there's also a 'netconsole='?).
> 
> Also I think the problem should be solved elsewhere :-)
> 
> In the end, what that code is trying to do (as are all the other similar
> instances) is to set "this is a good default in case nothing is
> specified *or* what is specified doesn't actually exist".
> 
> Of course "doesn't exist" is tricky since the console could be provided
> by a module loaded god knows when ... but in that case, maybe it does
> make sense to stick to one of the known good defaults. After all, init
> will fail without a tty ...
> 
> So I'm thinking we should in kernel/printk.c keep track of all those
> "arch defaults" when console= is specified as "latent" consoles, and
> right before starting init, if the specified one didn't work out (we
> have no console with an associated tty), then go through those latent
> ones and pick one that works.

So, I shouldn't apply this patch?  We should do something to fix this,
if Debian has to drag this patch on for 5 years, that's an indication
that this might be one solution we should use, right?

thanks,

greg k-h