On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:23:36PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >> I'd say the opposite way. Could you please explain in which case you > >> find it acceptable to *just crash*, and render the system completely > >> unusable, and possibly even not recoverable? > > > >1. If the kernel is configured without a driver for the disk controller, > >that happens. > > It says "unable to mount root fs", which indicates what's going wrong. > > >2. If the kernel is configured without the filesystem for the root > >partition, that happens. > > It says "unable to mount root fs", which indicates what's going wrong. > > >3. If the kernel is configured without VT or block support, that > >probably happens. > > It says "unable to mount root fs", which indicates what's going wrong. > > >4. If the kernel is configured without networking support, the system > >may boot but if it's a server it's unusable. > > It comes up, one can log in on the console, one can debug and will > find out fast what's going on. > > >If cgroups are essential for init, why is this so different from any of > >the above? > > From what one reads in this thread, init segfaults if cgroups is not > available. This is unacceptable. > > IMO, it would be just fine if it would say "kernel support for cgroups > not found" and die. https://lists.debian.org/87d2gyixug....@xoog.err.no
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
