Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:05:39 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFQ] make witness panic an option Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomtgeaFfp0M3u_DGHzKcTkPeBbYcmw=dbsedh8t=ba9-A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndC=JtgsLNWEcws32RmBgtegxPV%2BTXBi%2BPwYQhsRYxNDFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=i=Amo_QqHi4GnGie0Gc0YnK3XaRKjvBO-=SFboFYPmA@mail.gmail.com> <1353001175.1217.153.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-FndBP5Pi=SCpyBLK3b=HM_gQ9u8M4%2B1tLk9tA5X-gqismVA@mail.gmail.com> <47374EC3-5022-49AC-A17E-7F234A88B5C6@bsdimp.com> <CAJ-VmokcgHMYZC2v_fGvBBk1MfzkkfOecaJ%2B3MQrBN4nRG5GCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndC=JtgsLNWEcws32RmBgtegxPV%2BTXBi%2BPwYQhsRYxNDFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 November 2012 10:01, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomtgeaFfp0M3u_DGHzKcTkPeBbYcmw=dbsedh8t=ba9-A>