sth...@nethelp.no writes: > > Uh, no. Invariants are for developers who want to make sure their code > > is correct. There is no reason why an end user would want to build a > > kernel with invariants enabled. Invariants will *not* increase data > > safety. If they have any effect at all (i.e. if they actually catch a > > bug), the result is a panic (whereas with a kernel without invariants, > > the bug might actually go unnoticed). > So for the end user it's better to have the bug go unnoticed than to > get a kernel panic and notice the bug? Please tell me I'm misunder- > standing something here.
No, it is not - not in the general case, and not in the long term. I was trying to point out that there may be extreme cases where an otherwise harmless bug would cause a panic with invariants enabled. Matt claimed that invariants increase data safety, which I find difficult to understand. The only possible value an end user could derive from a kernel with invariants is a backtrace to attach to a send-pr. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
