On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Demelier <demelier.david_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/01/2011 00:03, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER >> <demelier.david_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all >>> modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing >>> suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work. >>> >>> Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem >>> without panic'ing? Is panic really needed? Imagine someone working on >>> something really important and his computer just panic, his work not >>> saved everybody shout at him in the corporation. He lose his job, his >>> wife, his dog, everything is wrong, just because of a panic() ! >>> >>> Seriously, I really hate when I play some music that suddenly the >>> music get stucked in a infinite loop, why ? I don't know because the >>> panic does not core dump. But after some search I found that the panic >>> was done because of conky. How the hell conky can panic FreeBSD? We >>> are in 2011 ! I think even Window 2000 does not crash on a user-land >>> software. >>> >>> I'm guessing now, if minix panic when a bloated crappy software is >>> running. I think Andrew is in the right way. >> >> So I guess with that reasoning we don't need asserts, bugs never >> occur, and the if the computer catches on fire we should just let it >> burn up instead of getting an extinguisher and put it out :D? >> As an example: I would rather have my PC panic and not write out >> corrupt data to disk instead of write out that corrupt data to disk. >> The latter has happened with userland apps on occasion before they >> crash, and that really fries my bacon... Similarly, if we're beyond >> recovery, panicing is the best and only option, but yes... recovery >> could be handled better in some cases. Filesystems are a bit trickier >> though because they're more mission critical than say a non-critical >> device driver (my sound driver?) tanking. > > In any case, when panic occurs, switching display to the tty can be great. > Why not a sysctl like kern.tty_on_panic? Because when you're running X and a > panic occurs not everybody understand what happens. > > Or the problem for me, when a panic occurs it *NEVER* core dump. Absolutely > never, it stops at a moment but does not finish so I need to be in tty to > debug directly so that's why a tty switch may helps in my case :-) That request makes sense... Thanks, -GarrettReceived on Sun Jan 23 2011 - 22:04:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:10 UTC