Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init: Do not warn on non-zero initcall return | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Wed, 01 May 2013 13:23:39 -0400 |
| |
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
| |