Re: printing aprint_error_count

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:30:23PM +0900, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
>  Or enclose with #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC?

Assuming we do not use aprint_error when there is no "error", hiding it for
non-DIAGNOSTIC kernels does not make sense to me (at least in the !silent
or !quiet case).

I wonder if we should make the error count available via a read-only sysctl,
so userland could act on it later (especially in quiet or silent boots).

Martin