Any reason why efipart_inithandles() should even return an error in this case? Seems to cause us nothing but trouble so we have to filter some, but not all errors which strikes me as a bad design. We should only return errors for real errors, like not having enough memory for the arrays we need.
Warner On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Toomas Soome <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: tsoome > Date: Fri Aug 3 07:59:29 2018 > New Revision: 337231 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/337231 > > Log: > loader.efi: clean up misleading noise from missing block devices > > If there are no block devices, there is no need to printout > error (ENOENT). > > In case of netboot, our image path has no block device, no need to make > noise about it. > > Modified: > head/stand/efi/loader/main.c > > Modified: head/stand/efi/loader/main.c > ============================================================ > ================== > --- head/stand/efi/loader/main.c Fri Aug 3 02:51:37 2018 > (r337230) > +++ head/stand/efi/loader/main.c Fri Aug 3 07:59:29 2018 > (r337231) > @@ -545,8 +545,6 @@ find_currdev(EFI_LOADED_IMAGE *img, bool do_bootmgr, b > return (0); > } > } > - } else { > - printf("Can't find device by handle\n"); > } > > /* > @@ -862,9 +860,9 @@ main(int argc, CHAR16 *argv[]) > * march through the device switch probing for things. > */ > i = efipart_inithandles(); > - if (i != 0) { > + if (i != 0 && i != ENOENT) { > printf("efipart_inithandles failed with ERRNO %d, expect " > - "failures", i); > + "failures\n", i); > } > > for (i = 0; devsw[i] != NULL; i++) > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
