Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][patch] console_flush()

Jimi Xenidis
Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:38:06 -0000

Should we unsync after the panic message, then?
-JX
On Apr 1, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:

>
> On 31 Mar 2006, at 20:24, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
>
>> It occurs to me that since console_sync_start/stop use ++ and --
>> respectively, that it was designed to be "nested" and bracket
code
>> segments.  If this is indeed desirable than perhaps we need
>> another interface that simply flushed the console.
>> The only real use I can see for it is to flush after the panic
>> message rather than using console_sync_start() before it.
>
> It''s designed to be nestable, but it doesn''t have to be
used that
> way. The only argument for a new interface function is if we
> thought its name and use were significantly less confusing or
> weird, which I don''t think is the case here. I also like the
> current strategy of switching to synchronous console mode *before*
> writing the critical info you care about, rather than flushing it
> after, although I suppose it doesn''t really matter much either
way.
>
>  -- Keir
>