Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:21:59 +0900 From: KATO Takenori <kato@eclogite.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: darrenr@cyber.com.au Cc: michaelh@cet.co.jp, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/union union_vnops.c Message-ID: <199704161222.VAA15848@gneiss.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:51:15 %2B1000 (EST)" References: <199704160851.SAA09685@plum.cyber.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I cannot object against both opinions. Kernel hackers may prefer panic to inter-process hang because panic and stack trace could help to find problems. Most users may prefer inter-process hang to panic because they can obtain a chance to sync filesystems. I think that we should chose one of them as the case may be. From: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/union union_vnops.c Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:51:15 +1000 (EST) > In some mail I received from Michael Hancock, sie wrote > > > > I saw that you found the real fix later. Cool. > > > > Regarding the below, I think it's better to panic in this case. Making > > things robust often works against making it work correctly. Consistency > > checks that result in panics are there to help you find problems. Working > > around consistency checks usually results in crufty code. > > A system that is up is a good thing. > > If a systems admin. can crash it by typing a mount command (for example) > incorrectly, that is bad (IMHO). I see what you're getting at but I'd > prefer it to return a nasty error. ---- KATO Takenori <kato@eclogite.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Dept. Earth Planet. Sci., Nagoya Univ., Nagoya, 464-01, Japan PGP public key: finger kato@eclogite.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp ------------------- Powered by FreeBSD(98) -------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704161222.VAA15848>