From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Dec 22 11:00:04 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16156
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:00:04 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16112;
          Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:00:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199712221900.LAA16112@hub.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Subject: Re: kern/5355: Fix for NULLFS problems
Reply-To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR kern/5355; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca
Cc: cy@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/5355: Fix for NULLFS problems
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 05:52:30 +1100

 >Would it be a good idea to to have a panic() or a printf() where I return a 
 >FALSE?  I'm torn between providing better diagnostic messages and reducing 
 >kernel bloat.  By doing a printf() or panic() any author of a filesystem would 
 >know that he would need to do some work on his code.
 
 I think you have to trust the [author of] the filesystem.  There are many
 other details that must be right, and this particular mistake probably
 won't be made again.
 
 Bruce