[RFC] trivial patch to suppress "kernel alive" during boot

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
Mon Sep 29 17:24:22 UTC 2008

Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>> Can this trivial patch be pulled in for post beta?
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/diff/2008/9/28/73/1
>>> It prevents the "Kernel alive" message from being
>>> printed after grub unless the debug kernel option is
>>> passed. It is pointless to new users and asking a
>>> user to reboot with the debug option seems reasonable
>>> enough for troubleshooting.
>> If it lands in Linus' tree, then we'll eventually get it for free.
>> Otherwise, It's a bit late in the cycle.
> Why? This is super trivial and is obvious what it does.
>> However, I'm curious why it bothers you. If quiet is enabled and splash
>> is disabled, its the only indication you get that the amd64 kernel is
>> booting until user space starts up.
> You removed the uncompressing linux line after grub when quiet is passed.
> Why not make quiet truly quiet and do as it says? If the user keeps the quiet
> boot option and disables usplash, that should be up to them to know what
> they are doing. For the rest of the users, it makes the experience less archaic
> and certainly smoother. Grub --> usplash isn't very long on any machine I've
> put ubuntu on.
> The patch is in Ingo's x86 tree right now, but Linus would probably
> reject it this
> late in the merge window.

Intrepid is in the same state, although our release manager calls it
feature freeze. Changing the boot definitely falls under this category.

> Rebooting the box, editing the grub command line to add a debug, and booting
> the kernel seems easy enough (even for a newbie user to follow directions) that
> this seems like a no-brainer to apply.
> I guess this is a way to improve the default ubuntu experience for a
> new to linux
> user and why I am arguing for it. Do you disagree with this? Can you see any
> problems with actually including it? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

I've been working on some of these slower netbook devices lately, and I
have to say that having them blurt something to the console once in
awhile during boot lets me know they are still work. Granted, I could
just as easily edit menu.lst myself ...

This whole issue ought to become moot sometime after Intrepid. The new
holy grail is the 5 second boot. Anything that clutters the boot process
is likely to get ripped out.

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com

More information about the kernel-team mailing list