Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:03:51 +0000
In message <C75B4E27-E2BA-43CF-AFB6-C8104AAA6C72@xxxxxxx>, Marcel Moolenaar wri
tes:
Agreed. We should not lump them together. However, they are
interrelated, so we cannot treat them independently either.
The switchboard approach was a way to 1) untangle the low-
level console from /dev/console and 2) allow everything to
be interconnected in some form of shape without backchannels
and/or hooks.
I'm deeply sceptical, but if you think you know how to do it,
in a way that still works in a panic context, by all means
try it out.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@xxxxxxxxxxx | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- From: Marcel Moolenaar
- Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- Prev by Date: Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- Next by Date: rwlocks: poor performance with adaptive spinning
- Previous by thread: Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- Next by thread: Re: Replacing/enhancing kernel printf()
- Index(es):