[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071216201849.24f7aa5f@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:18:49 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Parag Warudkar" <parag.warudkar@...il.com>
Cc: devzero@....de, Matt.Domsch@...l.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
> Why tax other people with a warning/hang etc. in printk when the
> problem is very unlikely on their systems?
I think there is sense in it if you do it subtly differently.
printk(".. if this hangs do ... \r");
edd_stuff();
printk(" \r");
So that we display it, do the EDD call, then write over it with whatever
is next that matters.
That way you'd only see it when it hung - and that might be worth a patch
and test from someone.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists