From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 23 04:26:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA03123 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:26:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA02967 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:20:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03152; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:20:49 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA24467; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:20:47 +0100 (MET) To: Bruce Evans Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/5355: Fix for NULLFS problems References: <199712221900.LAA16112@hub.freebsd.org> From: Eivind Eklund Date: 23 Dec 1997 13:20:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <86d8iow8rl.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Bruce Evans writes: > The following reply was made to PR kern/5355; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Bruce Evans > To: bde@zeta.org.au, cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca > Cc: cy@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: kern/5355: Fix for NULLFS problems > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 05:52:30 +1100 > > >Would it be a good idea to to have a panic() or a printf() where I return a > >FALSE? I'm torn between providing better diagnostic messages and reducing > >kernel bloat. By doing a printf() or panic() any author of a filesystem would > >know that he would need to do some work on his code. > > I think you have to trust the [author of] the filesystem. There are many > other details that must be right, and this particular mistake probably > won't be made again. I disagree (if I'm allowed to have an opinion ;-) I think this should be a panic() #ifdef'ed on DIAGNOSTIC. This should IMNSHO be the case for all checkable conditions; if we can detect an error early, it cost us _very_ little to put it under DIAGNOSTIC; if we feel that makes things running under DIAGNOSTIC too slow - well, we'll just have to create a even more heavy diagnostic option ;-) Eivind.