From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Mar  8 15:59:54 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA24411
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA24404
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA20571; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:59:09 -0800 (PST)
To: se@ZPR.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser)
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch),
        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD-current users)
Subject: Re: New kernel option proposed.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Mar 1996 14:15:17 +0100."
             <199603081315.AA09086@Sisyphos> 
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 15:59:09 -0800
Message-ID: <20569.826329549@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> Documenting these effects of FAILSAVE being defined
> is VERY important, or nobody will understand why a
> custom kernel fails, when the GENERIC kernel worked.

I don't disagree, but where would you suggest doing this?  Dropping a
multi-line comment into LINT for every possible consumer of FAILSAFE
will probably eventually result in a comment-from-hell entry in the
LINT file is what I'm afraid of.

						Jordan