From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 26 01:02:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA27680
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA27675
          for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id TAA23790; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:56:20 +1100
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:56:20 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199701260856.TAA23790@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, dgy@rtd.com
Subject: Re: suggestion for kernel printk() ?
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> probing all the devices.  printf() doesn't have any flow control.  It
>> can't afford to pause once the system is up because that would freeze
>> the whole system.  Freezing for 1 msec per character to for output at
>> 9600 bps is bad enough.
>
>But would it actually *break* anything?  Perhaps I'll hack in a two line
>patch next time I rebuild a kernel and see what happens...

Yes, it would steal characters from the foreground console unless the
keyboard is dedicated to low-level console input.

Bruce