Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:32:05 -0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why panic(9) ? Message-ID: <4D2CBE45.90209@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=OQbS-0jJx0YwZhM7xDWPLOkaYYZAYfESUEvvM@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=OQbS-0jJx0YwZhM7xDWPLOkaYYZAYfESUEvvM@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/11/11 12:11, David DEMELIER wrote: > Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem > without panic'ing? Is panic really needed? Imagine someone working on [...] Panic is used to stop the kernel in an aggressive way when data damage is detected and the damage is already beyond what the kernel can recover from. The kernel can and should be made more robust but no, I don't think we can totally eliminate panic(). Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJNLL5FAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBekQIAKc/uSvo/mi1qTChwk4PgaHy mLVXF1Wrdrm2naOR6k6n2/SKGabCWWbaAknmir1METbcojhMGMCXgCznUAJ4zKRH qpiToOdJWOA6VTTQDueK/WIqhuNTWv0qc3pfTZ3oWa/3aardp6G7AQJZKcZi3OGi ePkRNom7cDd8eXkZ6Sohgv1d3y8RAk0SXzW6as363aotdrVgGJmDYTHYQkEIWyF2 VYmM+uPdg08lm9Ryt/xvsOWwQwzcA+YeAH5M/mZJf0E5OaBf0Gx5NH059UqQOQt+ QHOShqLOGTkZ1l7bCp2Dl1yK6Gujgb1k0AwesuQLv+w0/0CfbRdRZLQz4+oI+Mo= =WDrK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D2CBE45.90209>