Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 03:48:19 +0800 (WST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern tty_subr.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951101034232.22432G-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <199510311935.LAA09641@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, David Greenman wrote: > >hsu 95/10/31 11:00:05 ( ^^^^ aargh!!! ) > > Modified: sys/kern tty_subr.c > > Log: > > Make a putc()/b_to_q() to a clist that hasn't had cblocks reserved > > non-fatal. I've make it return an appropriate error to the caller instead > > of panic()ing. > > > > Handling an error condition is inherently more friendly than exploding > > the kernel.. :-) The new behavior is a little closer to traditional > > clists, potentially making porting a little simpler. > > > > Suggested by: bde (many months ago, I've been using this for a while..) > > It's really strange that you should be committing this now - wcarchive just > crashed because of this only a few minutes before your commit! > (I'm sure you had nothing to do with it...right? :-)) Honest, I swear I never knew.. Oh wow.. Perhaps I should go out and buy a lottery ticket or something... :-) :-) (or keep clear of mirrors/black cats etc - I'm not sure if this is a good or bad omen... :-) I used to have this problem occasionally with the specialix driver, and in the end the interrupt routine had to do a lot of tests to attempt to intuit whether or not he cblocks were currently reserved or not. The thought occurred to me this morning that the driver that is in -current has only been seriously stress tested with this modification in the kernel. -Peter > -DG >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.951101034232.22432G-100000>