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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).