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

[Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel