[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <845f2370-0b7c-f37a-eb6a-588a3b01d0a8@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:52:11 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shreyas Joshi <shreyas.joshi@...mp.com>,
shreyasjoshi15@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] printk: Add kernel parameter: mute_console
On 10/23/20 4:49 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2020-10-22 16:59:15, John Ogness wrote:
>> On 2020-10-22, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>> The whole point of the exercise is to disable all consoles, including
>>> default ones which are not explicitly specified on the command line.
>>
>> In that case I think specifying something like:
>>
>> console=null
>>
>> makes that most sense. I think implementing a "null console" driver
>> would be quite simple. Then there would be no need for special handling
>> in the printk subsystem.
>
> Heh, it actually already exists and has been created for exactly this
> purpose, see the commit 3117ff13f104e98b05b6 ("tty: Add NULL TTY
> driver").
>
Ok with me to use that, as long as we add code that maps console=
and console=null to console=ttynull.
Guenter
> Regarding the interface:
>
> + console=null or console= is OK when people do not want consoles
> at all
>
> + mute_console (or another extra parameter) would be needed if
> people wanted to have login console.
>
> It is true that nobody asked for the login support. So, the null
> console should be enough for now.
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists