From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: frowand.list@gmail.com
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@gmail.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:16:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <542B7200.6030902@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542B5E44.40303@gmail.com>
On 09/30/14 20:52, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 5:58 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> If you're going to argue that it should "default y", that's a defensible
>> choice. But please don't argue for kernel config symbols with a negative
>> meaning or we'll start having allyesconfig_n brain damage too...
>
> Yes, "default y" is a valid answer to my request.
Works for me.
>>> Instead of using a config option, would adding another kernel
>>> command line option, such as 'init_fail_is_fatal', work for
>>> your needs?
>>
>> That was the previous series of patches you ignored, which added code so
>> you can provide _extra_ kernel commands to tell it _not_ to do stuff.
>> The patches did not generate noticeable enthusiasm.
>
> But there also was not a strong push back either. Just Chuck's suggestion
> of an alternate syntax, and your suggestion of instead using a config
> option (and possibly immediately deprecating the config option).
>
> You could as easily frame the argument that the added code was to
> tell the kernel to "_do_ stuff" (panic) instead of "_not_ do stuff".
> But that is just semantics on my part; whatever.
>
> I thought the general trend was to try to avoid adding config options.
> The strictinit method seems fine to me.
Embedded guys care:
http://elinux.org/Linux_Tiny
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1409.2/03763.html
>>> I have a feeling this has already been proposed,
>>> as the 'strictinit' option mentioned in the changes from v3
>>> below might be the same concept?
>>
>> That was it, yes.
>>
>> Having to get your kernel config right (and your kernel command line
>> right) in order for your system to boot is not really a new concept, is
>> it? You can still specify "init=/bin/sh" if you want that. (I do it all
>> the time when I need to edit a system I haven't bothered to look up the
>> root password to.)
>
> Yes, of course I can. So it falls back to personal preference (as I said,
> I like that some failed boots will drop into a shell without having to
> change the kernel command line).
The config option lets it do that. Default Y preserves the old behavior.
*shrug*
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-01 3:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-29 2:40 [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails Andy Lutomirski
2014-09-30 12:12 ` Chuck Ebbert
2014-10-01 0:41 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-01 0:58 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-01 1:52 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-01 3:16 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2014-10-01 4:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-01 18:05 ` josh
2014-10-01 18:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-01 22:42 ` josh
2014-10-14 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-14 21:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-15 5:46 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-15 5:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-15 6:37 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-15 15:18 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-20 20:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:01 ` Josh Triplett
2014-10-20 21:28 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 21:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:41 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 21:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:44 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 22:04 ` [PATCH] init: Remove CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 22:06 ` josh
2014-10-21 3:45 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-21 4:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-21 4:15 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-21 9:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-10-21 10:05 ` Josh Triplett
2014-10-14 0:47 ` [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=542B7200.6030902@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cebbert.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=shuah.kh@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.