On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:25:34 -0500 Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote: > > Its a printk handler - better to lose the bytes than hang the box. I > > think the current code is probably right. > > What do you think about this change: > > http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-October/thread.html#76830 > > This is the original version of my patch. In it, I simply allow drivers to > return 0 to indicate that they're too busy to accept data. It works great > on the hvc driver that we have in-house today, but it might break other > drivers that return 0 to indicate error. If you want to make that change then I guess you need to audit every other hvc driver first. But I never understood the point of the hvc layer anyway 8) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
