From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752033AbaJADQM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:16:12 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com ([209.85.218.44]:60656 "EHLO mail-oi0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751120AbaJADQL (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:16:11 -0400 Message-ID: <542B7200.6030902@landley.net> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:16:16 -0500 From: Rob Landley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: frowand.list@gmail.com CC: Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Ebbert , Randy Dunlap , Shuah Khan , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails References: <5c6381879bea68aebb13530442f1cf8a052be97f.1411958379.git.luto@amacapital.net> <542B4DA3.5080105@gmail.com> <542B519B.6010001@landley.net> <542B5E44.40303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <542B5E44.40303@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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