Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:31:35 +1000 From: Tony Griffiths <tonyg@OntheNet.com.au> To: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel panic() on unaligned memory access... Message-ID: <3626F657.8B1DA535@OntheNet.com.au> References: <199810160644.OAA16113@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote: > > Mike Smith wrote: > [..] > > > In my opinion, it's not only bad, but _irresponsible_ to let the > > > system bumble on in the face of such a bug. High uptime is nice, but > > > if it comes at the cost of ignoring serious system errors or > > > corrupting data, it's worthless. > > > > I don't think anyone would disagree with you here. However an unaligned > > access doesn't fit into this case, as you can handle it cleanly (while > > tagging the problem as an error) without crying wolf. Which is why I said in a previous response that a panic() should be conditionally taken based on a sysctl variable. For debugging purposes in -alpha/beta/v1.0 releases, a little more toleration of "non-fatal" errors should be acceptable! The sysctl flag still gives a developer the option of dumping if they really want one to track down why the unaligned access is occurring while at the same time giving everyone else a few less headaches trying to track down someone elses stuffup... At some release after the first when most code paths have been thoroughly exercised, the default can be changed from doing a fixup+printf to panicing. Tony To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3626F657.8B1DA535>