On 10/20/14 23:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote:
>> On 10/20/14 17:04, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> --- a/init/main.c
>>> +++ b/init/main.c
>>> @@ -960,13 +960,8 @@ static int __ref kernel_init(void *unused)
>>> ret = run_init_process(execute_command);
>>> if (!ret)
>>> return 0;
>>> -#ifndef CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK
>>> panic("Requested init %s failed (error %d).",
>>> execute_command, ret);
>>> -#else
>>> - pr_err("Failed to execute %s (error %d). Attempting
>>> defaults...\n",
>>> - execute_command, ret);
>>> -#endif
>>> }
>>> if (!try_to_run_init_process("/sbin/init") ||
>>> !try_to_run_init_process("/etc/init") ||
>>>
>>
>> Would you like to remove the try_to_run_init_process() stack of random
>> hardwired names that we can never reach if we panic, or do you just want
>> to remove the error message?
>>
>
> I'm confused. That code is reachable if there's no initramfs and
> init= is not specified.
Ah, I thought the purpose of the original patch was to make init=
required, but if not then fine.
/etc/init is still crazy, though.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
