Date: 10 Mar 1999 16:53:34 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Jos Backus <Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com>, Dmitrij Tejblum <dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru>, perhaps@yes.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: zone: entry not free Message-ID: <xzplnh57340.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Matthew Dillon's message of "Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:03:15 -0800 (PST)" References: <19990223094120.A97001@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> <199902230909.MAA01169@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> <19990223105939.D97001@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> <36D329D1.73146EEF@newsguy.com> <199902250803.AAA01163@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes: > I would disagree with that. Invariants are for people who want > their data to be as safe as possible and don't mind eating a little > cpu doing extra sanity checks in the kernel. It is something I would > almost certainly enable in a production kernel. Uh, no. Invariants are for developers who want to make sure their code is correct. There is no reason why an end user would want to build a kernel with invariants enabled. Invariants will *not* increase data safety. If they have any effect at all (i.e. if they actually catch a bug), the result is a panic (whereas with a kernel without invariants, the bug might actually go unnoticed). You must be thinking of the FAILSAFE option. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzplnh57340.fsf>