From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 15 18:05:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C804AA93; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861758FC19; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id kp6so1343688pab.13 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5KiudfFWpVUT8SO8AmCj9ZeGusK0Nw9XGqKBQy9KIZ0=; b=Dqeh9DiGVXhCRc3MIvG5i6b4OMDmILGrom9UMGYuZDxxD7PMUtns+pDmSQDeEif49S 7Sy439g9aaGwsmO48Xox3h5ncsPgnGtJQGIMmYtGbR5HMznGKjRi37yb1zHNfQgozL6i 7k3LzzUJeXyp0mIM4pL6Zeccfbof70PC0gKTJ/FDAl0XJDs3GOfWaciTQ2zuXkw4vORX xWu9Q2glY7pgSlV1w1j7M1PdUTJcCOwPwWk1EmrXMTimOWjqn0Pcr/rXGLUYj2bThcla NrujuhQfysOFfWoQrD3Vfmh/fLy1dwfzDcgy9dbHWLyNz8s31Yo6vC7fNRitkqk8Y05r HL+A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.238.199 with SMTP id vm7mr6959752pbc.105.1353002739276; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.124.130 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1353001175.1217.153.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <47374EC3-5022-49AC-A17E-7F234A88B5C6@bsdimp.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:05:39 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eeSF1SKe-_FUXeAsxEMyAhRsFpA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFQ] make witness panic an option From: Adrian Chadd To: attilio@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Ian Lepore , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:39 -0000 On 15 November 2012 10:01, Attilio Rao wrote: > I think that your worries are focused more around the latter than the > former, which can be easilly shut down already today. > > And frankly I will never be in favor of a patch that automatically > shutdowns lock assertion. Please patch your local code to do so but > don't add any generic/upstream/all-around mechanism for that. Would a comprimise be ok? Ie, if I pushed everything but the sysctl upstream, and just defaulted it to always panic? That way my diff wouldn't have to be a big thing; I'd just add the sysctl. adrian