Re: Boot Consoles question...

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> wrote:

> On Fri 10 Jul 2009 06:28, Ingo Molnar pondered:
> > 
> > * Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat 4 Jul 2009 12:07, Robin Getz pondered:
> > > > On Sat 4 Jul 2009 06:29, Ingo Molnar pondered:
> > > > > Could be changed i guess ... but is it really an issue?
> > > > 
> > > > It is just a change from "normal" (when the kernel has no boot
> > > > console).
> > > > 
> > > > >  One artifact 
> > > > >  could be manual scroll-back - it would perhaps be nice indeed to
> > > > >  allow the scrollback to the top of the bootlog.
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly.
> > > > 
> > > > One of my thoughts (was since CON_PRINTBUFFER isn't used after 
> > > > register_console()) - was for the CON_BOOT's CON_PRINTBUFFER flag to
> > > > control the clearing of the CON_PRINTBUFFER for the real console or
> > > > not... 
> > > > 
> > > > All early_printk consoles that I looked at have their
> > > > CON_PRINTBUFFER set.
> > > > 
> > > > Which means that something like should do the trick -- allow people
> > > > who want 
> > > > to override things to do so, and still have the today's setup work
> > > > as is...
> > > 
> > > I guess no one liked that idea?
> > 
> > No, this means no-one objected :)
> 
> Silence is consensus?

No - silence is 'no objections expressed'. That doesnt make a change 
agreed on, it makes a change "not objected to so far" ;-) It could 
still be wrong, the onus is on you and me to make sure that isnt the 
case.

	Ingo