[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dP25Qm8geQeWowSGauwnJ0Mi7Hpv5H_WQUl5J7q2T3Xjz6bt16rXUP45Q9nwkvdQEVsM3bLdxA7Z0RgomgshJN9q1zFE19UF-VzBqGEjY_Q=@protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 23:09:07 +0000
From: Harry Austen <hpausten@...tonmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lillian Berry <lillian@...r-ark.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: prevent warning on lack of default implicit rdinit
On Thursday, 15 January 2026 at 20:02, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:02:27 +0000 Harry Austen hpausten@...tonmail.com wrote:
>
> > If rdinit was not explicitly provided on cmdline, and default /init does
> > not exist, no warning should be printed.
>
>
> Seems that we already have a very similar patch from Lillian:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/init-mainc-check-if-rdinit-was-explicitly-set-before-printing-warning.patch
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/init-mainc-check-if-rdinit-was-explicitly-set-before-printing-warning-fix.patch
>
> What's happening here?
Oh, interesting. Have those already been accepted? Looks like there's no
additional ENOENT check, so the warning gets printed even less often, which is fine by me.
Apologies for missing that this appears to have already been fixed and feel free
to ignore my patch.
Thanks,
Harry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists