From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79B3027FD49
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 02:47:48 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1768445268; cv=none; b=aag2soVMP9ynCFl/3NbfDLyFdztgEKAiW1KnsY1AoEv33eXYAbYaM306cMIB0GgfxRjtBcfu4VxJCMZbk7ISNdp5BHZOsCzSO5TuA7MBtXroEBHIPXVFpKiNOSzKcdhcnCnGynWqNg1o1LdJtgunyxbZbrGTheCdyYEStPVxxDs=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1768445268; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=IrqPAj19GKGDHENtSp6rgxymAdZZTh9HmvyyN4l9rUY=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:
	 Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=bH6cEPYa83TptciJ+FdzDnHOL78g8Ek1vlkqxoOoCghymJoYlJF+4t8Ykga85Sv5bItCsTmLxC8h9EU97jZtNQve5EHaTnCQNMcC9YeXkyL3JH/x3QzxL8yDTZmR06z34Adak8QYk51OhNOQ8peo4LzfRvEfvbvcv5PmdTaGAWA=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=l6Bs2IDQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="l6Bs2IDQ"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA401C19424;
	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 02:47:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org;
	s=korg; t=1768445268;
	bh=IrqPAj19GKGDHENtSp6rgxymAdZZTh9HmvyyN4l9rUY=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=l6Bs2IDQ1g6lIzScA1nk/02E8Nar8ogtp4XlvAmZbAEn1/tI4M/aIZfGlxsGHvRYa
	 4Wax/yJ3pdD4V1iilNO6nVpLQ0r9tj6MSsxLptnjB8D8fmh+pzZf+YQk/UF+qY+FTV
	 BhRk0LX8HYAk4GaFuEd3drCsbe04l9M4JqtBjqZE=
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:47:47 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Harry Austen <hpausten@protonmail.com>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Lillian Berry <lillian@star-ark.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: prevent warning on lack of default
 implicit rdinit
Message-Id: <20260114184747.f08a7b4fcac9ace8a330fdde@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20260114220139.4685-1-hpausten@protonmail.com>
References: <20260114220139.4685-1-hpausten@protonmail.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:02:27 +0000 Harry Austen <hpausten@protonmail.com> wrote:

> If rdinit was not explicitly provided on cmdline, and default /init does
> not exist, no warning should be printed.
> 
> Fixes: 98aa4d5d242d ("init/main.c: add warning when file specified in rdinit is inaccessible")

Details, please?  What was wrong about the above commit?

> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static size_t initargs_offs;
>  
>  static char *execute_command;
>  static char *ramdisk_execute_command = "/init";
> +static bool __initdata ramdisk_execute_command_provided = false;
>  
>  /*
>   * Used to generate warnings if static_key manipulation functions are used
> @@ -623,6 +624,7 @@ static int __init rdinit_setup(char *str)
>  	unsigned int i;
>  
>  	ramdisk_execute_command = str;
> +	ramdisk_execute_command_provided = true;
>  	/* See "auto" comment in init_setup */
>  	for (i = 1; i < MAX_INIT_ARGS; i++)
>  		argv_init[i] = NULL;
> @@ -1699,8 +1701,9 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
>  	int ramdisk_command_access;
>  	ramdisk_command_access = init_eaccess(ramdisk_execute_command);
>  	if (ramdisk_command_access != 0) {
> -		pr_warn("check access for rdinit=%s failed: %i, ignoring\n",
> -			ramdisk_execute_command, ramdisk_command_access);
> +		if (ramdisk_execute_command_provided || ramdisk_command_access != -ENOENT)
> +			pr_warn("check access for rdinit=%s failed: %i, ignoring\n",
> +				ramdisk_execute_command, ramdisk_command_access);

Replacing the !=0 check with !=ENOENT appears to be off-topic.  What's
happening here?