fusefs-kmod broken?

[Ed Schouten]

* Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at 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.

-- 
 Ed Schouten <ed at 80386.nl>
 WWW: http://80386.nl/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20100823/68f50c6f/attachment.pgp