[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wif0QueN8ovkm_x7TsOgOHjRrOa4wU-zHgBP=FTAnzvNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:59:17 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Shreyas Joshi <shreyas.joshi@...mp.com>,
shreyasjoshi15@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] printk: Add kernel parameter: mute_console
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Users use various undocumented ways how to completely disable
> console output. It is usually done by passing an invalid console
> name, for example, console="", console=null.
>
> It mostly works but just by chance.
Honestly, since that 'console=""' seems to be out in the wild, I think
we might as well just (a) document it, and (b) make sure it works by
more than chance.
That said, I also like John Ogness' suggestion to have it as a
per-console option to mute a particular console. At least that seems
like a perfectly fine extension.
I don't really see the point of a whole new "mute_console" option,
considering that people already figured out an alternate way to do it
that we'd have to support going forward anyway. Just make that the
standard.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists