Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:09:41 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fusefs-kmod broken? Message-ID: <20100823140941.GD64651@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20100823140149.GG2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201008230826.49509.jhb@freebsd.org> <E1OmUBI-0000Oy-J5@clue.co.za> <E1OnWc7-0001Kv-47@clue.co.za> <20100823132551.GE2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100823133555.GA64651@hoeg.nl> <20100823134459.GF2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100823134723.GC64651@hoeg.nl> <20100823140149.GG2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > I would not object loudly if someone put such checks as proposed > under INVARIANTS, but also I do not see a real point in having them. > Might be slightly better to put the checks, again under INVARIANTS, > in the fo_XXX() wrappers. Well, the entire point is to put them in finit(), because that way you as a programmer will get punished as soon as possible, namely when you implement the new type of file descriptor. Putting them in the fo_XXX() wrappers makes little sense, because that will only cause a panic 1 microsecond before it would have crashed on the null pointer anyway. --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxygSUACgkQ52SDGA2eCwXjIQCeNT5l1GHhFlTIyoTJxzqx1VAL N8QAniHJ3jQbbtQVxu5BLj7y6XOuyvQU =G6fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IDYEmSnFhs3mNXr+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100823140941.GD64651>