Re: [PATCH] init: make init failures more explicit

[Michael Opdenacker]

Hi Geert,

On 10/18/2013 11:23 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Michael Opdenacker
> <michael.opdenacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +       if (ret && ret != -ENOENT) {
>> +               pr_err("Starting init: %s exists but couldn't execute it\n",
> I think it makes sense to also print the value of ret here.
> Apart from your -ENOEXEC case, peeking a bit around, it can be also be
> -EINVAL, -ENOMEM (debug binary too big for small embedded system?),
> -EACCES, -E2BIG, ...
I agree. It would definitely make sense. I'll propose a new version.

Many thanks!

Cheers,

Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/