Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 19:39:23 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org> 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.3.96.990310193534.27517C-100000@fledge.watson.org> 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. # Halt the system (panic) on discovering an unexpected kernel # inconsistency, in an attempt to prevent data corruption. Disabled # by default on production releases because of increased CPU load and that # these states "should never happen". Good on -CURRENT. # # Bugs: Does not stop on other kinds of failures (hardware, etc) # # options FAILSTOP Robert N Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: 03 01 DD 8E 15 67 48 73 25 6D 10 FC EC 68 C1 1C Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cmu.edu/ TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc. http://www.tis.com/ Safeport Network Services http://www.safeport.com/ 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.3.96.990310193534.27517C-100000>