Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:48:57 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Swartzendruber <druber@kersur.net> 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 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990310114826.26880A-100000@mail.kersur.net> In-Reply-To: <28892.921083219@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990310114826.26880A-100000>