Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:20:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [BIKESHED] Giving abort(2) a reason Message-ID: <20040912.152047.16265436.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <61109.1095023635@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20040912.142552.83283958.imp@bsdimp.com> <61109.1095023635@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <61109.1095023635@critter.freebsd.dk>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
: In message <20040912.142552.83283958.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
:
: >: Given that we are usually pretty stumped when we get to call abort(2)
: >: it needs to work without malloc or anything like it and varargs into
: >: the kernel is not at all in my future.
: >
: >Only in malloc. Everywhere else, people have enough state to cope.
: >Do we really want to have another kernel API just to support malloc
: >failures?
:
: Well, the problem is that practically nothing else works once malloc
: fails, and people seem to find the lack of visible explanation a
: problem.
:
: syslog() or anything else using varargs is not going to work...
Wouldn't it be better to have a more generic 'Put this into dmesg'
thing that doesn't require malloc to work? It seems silly to bloat
the kernel for only a malloc failure case...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040912.152047.16265436.imp>