Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:10:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> To: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 11-Beta1 problem with virtual KVM Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1607130709540.10999@laptop.wojtek.intra> In-Reply-To: <27ab24b9-ef8c-0ce5-c70b-d7fe3a201946@denninger.net> References: <4dc72d13-bdbf-3947-0564-4e8553475b17@denninger.net> <CAPed3OG9sa-F_t%2B%2BwTFHydBgHNO20cc_w6eaC7qVOU72rbHRsw@mail.gmail.com> <4e137b8a-4dd4-10c9-7843-83452c217a70@denninger.net> <bd5decf7-7757-2591-783e-998399ad220a@FreeBSD.org> <27ab24b9-ef8c-0ce5-c70b-d7fe3a201946@denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> That will at least narrow down the problem to the new vt(4). > kern.vty="sc" returns me to a reasonable console that works properly > over the KVM. anyway - does it make any sense to use vt(4) on servers, where only text console is needed?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1607130709540.10999>