Date: 23 Dec 1997 13:20:46 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/5355: Fix for NULLFS problems Message-ID: <86d8iow8rl.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:00:01 -0800 (PST) References: <199712221900.LAA16112@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > The following reply was made to PR kern/5355; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d8iow8rl.fsf>