From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 9 19:56:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA15729 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:56:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA15717 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:56:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xqrpy-0000iQ-00; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:43:54 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:43:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: dennis cc: Jamie Bowden , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Netcards In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980109173418.00e5be40@etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, dennis wrote: > Just look in raw_usrreq(). the default case is a panic. Oh well, your X server could screw up and crash your system too (using priviledged i/o), except you could lose data too because chances are it will be a hard lock and filesystems will not be unmounted. ... > > Another tangent. Panics have little to do with application errors that > >were described in the original message. In fact there was no mention of > >panics at all. > > You were talking about inappropriate handling of exception conditions, > which seems > to be a parallel. Perhaps. Applications should be taking care of their own exception handling. Calling atoi with a NULL is silly, and would only come from a really broken application. The complaint was that the application ABORTed. On second thought, that is probably much better than an error message, as the abort will give you a core which you can use to fix the application. I think that is good idea. > db Tom