Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:37:47 +0100 From: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: d@delphij.net Cc: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why panic(9) ? Message-ID: <AANLkTinzWR63aeAhwgwQAMX5-ghfHJ%2BEZ83xb8mH7Tj%2B@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D2CBE45.90209@delphij.net> References: <AANLkTi=OQbS-0jJx0YwZhM7xDWPLOkaYYZAYfESUEvvM@mail.gmail.com> <4D2CBE45.90209@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 01/11/11 12:11, David DEMELIER wrote: >> Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem >> without panic'ing? Is panic really needed? Imagine someone working on > [...] > > Panic is used to stop the kernel in an aggressive way when data damage > is detected and the damage is already beyond what the kernel can recover > from. > > The kernel can and should be made more robust but no, I don't think we > can totally eliminate panic(). Exactly. One area where the kernel should be made more robust is UFS with disappearing disks (e.g. USB mounted file systems, or, as recently happened here with a loose external SATA cable). Panicing here is REALLY annoying. ;-) > Cheers, > - -- > Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> =A0 =A0http://www.delphij.net/ > FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Live free or die -cpghost. --=20 Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinzWR63aeAhwgwQAMX5-ghfHJ%2BEZ83xb8mH7Tj%2B>