Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:43:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: Jamie Bowden <jamie@itribe.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Netcards Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980109193511.2745A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980109173418.00e5be40@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980109193511.2745A-100000>