From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Samo Pogacnik <samo_pogacnik@t-2.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] detour TTY driver - now ttyprintk
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:24:44 +0200
Message-ID: <1282843484.2440.23.camel@itpsd6lap>
References: <20100824225703.GA5913@suse.de>
	 <20100825002221.68fc09a4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100824231241.GA6971@suse.de>
	 <20100825005152.40ba2f12@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100825004134.GA28884@suse.de>
	 <20100825110813.5f7d7ac8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100825155716.GB16284@suse.de>
	 <20100825181108.1dcd0d80@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100825171045.GA19401@suse.de>
	 <20100825191437.1df57c9d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100825181647.GA22018@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=t-2.net; h=
	content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:message-id:date
	:date:content-type:content-type:references:in-reply-to:from:from
	:subject:subject:received:received:received:received; s=
	smtp-out-1; t=1282843498; x=1284657898; bh=pz1uFy9twTweiNygWhPwr
	j4GksBJhCYRa7xhKYhrxlg=; b=FKgJSQt9H7W02+Qo4xZWtWvH71GXEPTNb3vyc
	6d48136gDBf+Yr7u2UfCUjbEB/tTIrZJyQ2TVcXt6YHaEZHTb3uj6sErHFqQU38M
	j/JzII74hL+7BkKXKKq0t52FMdPDBQTXEDUwKzX9iblMAGr4X+WAEUhVn74/zp+T
	4fkZkM=
In-Reply-To: <20100825181647.GA22018@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-embedded.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>, linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-embedded <linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org>

On 25.08.2010 (sre) at 11:16 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:14:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > That's one extra process, not that much, right?
> > > > 
> > > > About 150K or so way too much and its not robust.
> > > 
> > > Fair enough.  So, with this driver, would it make sense for the distros
> > > to switch over to using it instead of the above line in their initrd?
> > 
> > Distros no - I doubt any normal PC distro would turn the facility on.
> > Embedded - yes especially deeply embedded.
> 
> So should this be dependent on CONFIG_EMBEDDED then?
> 

Should i resend the patch with CONFIG_EMBEDDED dependency enabled? I do
not have any real objections to that, except that the driver operates
the same way regardless of the (non-)embedded configuration.

regards, Samo