From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 13 18:32:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF0B1065672 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:32:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072EC8FC08 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:32:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.221.2] (remotevpn [192.168.221.2]) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9DIVa9t086428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Message-ID: <4CB5FB05.3040609@feral.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:33 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob Organization: Feral Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org References: <20101007180657.GA1383@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <20101013085025.GB54686@jh> <4CB5E14B.9070308@feral.com> <20101013182242.GA1988@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> In-Reply-To: <20101013182242.GA1988@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (ns1.feral.com [192.168.221.1]); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: HEADS UP: device name checking on device registration X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:32:01 -0000 Oh, duh. Yes, but the panic seems harsh. On 10/13/2010 11:22 AM, Jaakko Heinonen wrote: > >> Perhaps you could also fix devfs to not panic when somebody tries to >> make a device that already exists and just return an error with a >> diagnostic while you're at it? > I am not sure if I understand what you mean with this. > make_dev(9), make_dev_cred(9) and make_dev_credf(9) can't return an > error code. >