From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 14:09:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D301065693 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:09:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: from mx0.hoeg.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a01:4f8:101:5343::aa]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B844F8FC16 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mx0.hoeg.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 22C652A28D23; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:09:41 +0200 From: Ed Schouten To: Kostik Belousov Message-ID: <20100823140941.GD64651@hoeg.nl> References: <201008230826.49509.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100823132551.GE2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100823133555.GA64651@hoeg.nl> <20100823134459.GF2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100823134723.GC64651@hoeg.nl> <20100823140149.GG2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100823140149.GG2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Ian FREISLICH , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fusefs-kmod broken? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:09:42 -0000 --IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Kostik Belousov wrote: > I would not object loudly if someone put such checks as proposed > under INVARIANTS, but also I do not see a real point in having them. > Might be slightly better to put the checks, again under INVARIANTS, > in the fo_XXX() wrappers. Well, the entire point is to put them in finit(), because that way you as a programmer will get punished as soon as possible, namely when you implement the new type of file descriptor. Putting them in the fo_XXX() wrappers makes little sense, because that will only cause a panic 1 microsecond before it would have crashed on the null pointer anyway. --=20 Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ --IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxygSUACgkQ52SDGA2eCwXjIQCeNT5l1GHhFlTIyoTJxzqx1VAL N8QAniHJ3jQbbtQVxu5BLj7y6XOuyvQU =G6fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+--