From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 26 23:49:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D5716A4CE; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:49:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out005.verizon.net (out005pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B72B43D1D; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:49:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from babkin@bellatlantic.net) Received: from bellatlantic.net ([141.153.249.52]) by out005.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040726234924.NSNQ3910.out005.verizon.net@bellatlantic.net>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:49:24 -0500 Sender: root@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <4105987E.5FC50517@bellatlantic.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:49:18 -0400 From: Sergey Babkin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Max Laier References: <20040718184008.GC57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040719075952.GG57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <200407191855.19885.max@love2party.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out005.verizon.net from [141.153.249.52] at Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:49:22 -0500 cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr cc: pjd@FreeBSD.org cc: zeratul2@wanadoo.es cc: nsouch@free.fr cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some PRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:49:25 -0000 Max Laier wrote: > > On Monday 19 July 2004 16:13, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > The question to me is, do we really want to support (read fertilize) such a > stupid thing? Given the chance that once we do support it people will use it. > In my opinion it is bad to integrate something into base that we agree is > nothing one should ever have created (at least that's my reading of the > thread so far). I see no user-pessure for this. I'm about a week behind :-) but here are my 2 cents: it's a VERY useful device for testing. Not checking the error code of write(), printf() and such is a typical bug, so making it easy to detect by switching the output to /dev/full (or creating a symlink to it) is a very good idea. Like this: yourprogram >/dev/full \ && echo "The program does not check for success of write()" -SB