From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 10 7:54:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C837414C98 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 07:54:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.2/8.9.1) id QAA67278; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:53:36 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: Matthew Dillon Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , Jos Backus , Dmitrij Tejblum , perhaps@yes.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: zone: entry not free References: <19990223094120.A97001@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> <199902230909.MAA01169@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> <19990223105939.D97001@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> <36D329D1.73146EEF@newsguy.com> <199902250803.AAA01163@apollo.backplane.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 10 Mar 1999 16:53:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: Matthew Dillon's message of "Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:03:15 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon writes: > I would disagree with that. Invariants are for people who want > their data to be as safe as possible and don't mind eating a little > cpu doing extra sanity checks in the kernel. It is something I would > almost certainly enable in a production kernel. Uh, no. Invariants are for developers who want to make sure their code is correct. There is no reason why an end user would want to build a kernel with invariants enabled. Invariants will *not* increase data safety. If they have any effect at all (i.e. if they actually catch a bug), the result is a panic (whereas with a kernel without invariants, the bug might actually go unnoticed). You must be thinking of the FAILSAFE option. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message