From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 20:14:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A1D1065670; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lulf@FreeBSD.org) Received: from bene2.itea.ntnu.no (bene2.itea.ntnu.no [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E528FC1C; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:14:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lulf@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bene2.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3325190003; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:14:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from nobby (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::184]) by bene2.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C153290001; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:14:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:14:26 +0100 From: Ulf Lilleengen To: Rink Springer Message-ID: <20081125191426.GA2635@nobby.lan> References: <200811251913.mAPJDwrD032237@svn.freebsd.org> <20081125192048.GA12700@rink.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081125192048.GA12700@rink.nu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bene2.itea.ntnu.no Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r185309 - head/sys/geom/vinum X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:14:39 -0000 On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:20:48PM +0100, Rink Springer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 07:13:58PM +0000, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > > Author: lulf > > Date: Tue Nov 25 19:13:58 2008 > > New Revision: 185309 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/185309 > > > > Log: > > - Fix a potential NULL pointer reference. Note that this cannot happen in > > practice, but it is a good programming practice nontheless and it allows the > > kernel to not depend on userland correctness. > > If it can't happen in practice, why not just ASSERT on them? This would > be useful for debugging, and it basically tells whoever reads the code > about the scenario's you are dealing with... > Well, As the last sentence states, I think it's nicer to make the kernel part as independent of the userland part as possible, rather than panicing if the userland part should do an error. Also, reporting such errors back seems to be the common practice if you look at other GEOM classes, and it's good for consistency in a way. -- Ulf Lilleengen