From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 10 8:46: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.kersur.net (mail.kersur.net [199.79.199.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07C7152A0 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:46:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from druber@mail.kersur.net) Received: from localhost (druber@localhost) by mail.kersur.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA27322; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:48:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:48:57 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Swartzendruber To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: des@flood.ping.uio.no, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, dcs@newsguy.com, Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com, dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru, perhaps@yes.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: zone: entry not free In-Reply-To: <28892.921083219@verdi.nethelp.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > 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). > > So for the end user it's better to have the bug go unnoticed than to > get a kernel panic and notice the bug? Please tell me I'm misunder- > standing something here. I have to concur. I've never understood the "don't worry be happy" point of view on this issue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message