Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:23:03 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init: make init failures more explicit | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@free-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, ...
> + init_filename); > + }
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |