lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] init: Do not warn on non-zero initcall return
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 10:11 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > Commit f91eb62f71 "init: scream bloody murder if interrupts are enabled
> > too early" added three new warnings. The first two seemed reasonable,
> > but the third included a warning when an initcall returned non-zero.
> > Although, the third WARN() does include an imbalanced preempt disabled,
> > or irqs disable, it shouldn't warn if it only had an initcall that just
> > returns non-zero.
>
> Ugh. Sorry, but this patch just looks stupid.
>
> It seems that the right thing to do is to just remove the whole crappy
>
> if (ret && ret != -ENODEV && initcall_debug)
> sprintf(msgbuf, "error code %d ", ret);
>
> thing entirely, since it's moronic to add that error code printout
> anyway, since if initcall_debug is set, we already do a much *better*
> job earlier with the whole
>
> pr_debug("initcall %pF returned %d after %lld usecs\n",
> fn, ret, duration);
>
> printout in do_one_initcall_debug(). That will then fix the WARN()
> issue automatically.

Heh, I didn't even notice that it only prints if initcall_debug was
enabled.

OK, I'll just remove that part of the code.

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-01 20:01    [W:0.049 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site