Hi Daniel, On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 05:02:34PM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote: > Until now, deferred console takeover only meant defer until there is > output. But that risks stepping on the toes of userspace splash screens > as console messages may appear before the splash screen. > > This becomes more likely the later the splash screen starts, but even > systems whose splash exists in initrd may not be not immune because they > still rely on racing against all possible kernel messages that might > trigger the fbcon takeover. And those kernel messages are hardware > dependent so what boots silently on one machine may not be so quiet on > the next. We also want to shield users from seeing warnings about their > hardware/firmware that they don't always have the power to fix themselves, > and may not be deemed worthy of fixing by the vendor. > > So now we check the command line for the expectation of userspace splash > (CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE_DEFERRED_TAKEOVER_CONDITION) and if present > then defer fbcon's takeover until the first console switch. In the case > of Plymouth, its value would typically be "splash". This keeps the boot > experience clean and silent so long as the command line requests so. > > Closes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1970069 > Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Daniel van Vugt <daniel.van.vugt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> It's not clear to me why we should want to make it an option? If one strategy is better than the other, and I guess the new one is if you consider it fixes a bug and bothered to submit it upstream, why not just get rid of the old one entirely? I guess my question is: why do we want the choice, and what are the tradeoff each strategy brings? Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
