From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 23 01:04:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25830 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:04:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.artcom.de (tui.artcom.de [192.76.129.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA25778 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:04:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hans@artcom.de) Received: by mail.artcom.de id m0ySGzO-00000wC; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:04:14 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:04:14 +0200 (MEST) From: hans@artcom.de (Hans Huebner) To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Does this deserve send-pr? Newsgroups: artcom.mailing-list.freebsd.questions In-Reply-To: Organization: Art+Com GmbH, Berlin, Germany Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug White writes: >On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jason C. Wells wrote: >> I did this stupid thing by accident. I did it a second time just to make >> sure. :) >> # mount_cd9660 /dev/wcd0c /dev >> I got, "panic ufs_lock resursive lock not expected pid 158," for my >> efforts. >> Should this be a problem report? I ask here first because I have two >> problem reports come back to me as non-problem reports. >No, that's pilot error. :) phk would swat that PR in an instant. I strongly disagree. If there is a way to sanity check the arguments, they should be checked. I agree that pilots need to know what they do, but crashing the machine because of a pilot error should be avoided if possible. -Hans To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message