[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5261001D.3090909@free-electrons.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:32:13 +0200
From: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: make init failures more explicit
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@...e-electrons.com> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists