[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [reiserfs-list] ReiserFS Oops (2.4.1, deterministic, symlink related)
    	I hate to say it but I think Hans might have the right answer here. As an administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar companies where 1 hour of downtime == $75,000 in lost income proactive prevention IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh version then they can apply a removal patch hans provides in the crash message. This makes it easy to remove the safeguard and blow yourself up at will after being suitibly called a dumbass.

    I do understand your desire to keep things simple and not put a safetynet out for every single moron out there. Personaly I despise them. But I also understand the evil necessity of doign this for somet hings that are this serious of a risk.

    From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable....

    make it blow up fataly and immediatly if it detects Red Hat + gcc 2.96-red_hat_broken(forgot version num)
    make it provide a URL to get the patch to remove this safeguard if you really want this.

    The fatal crash should be VERY carefull to only trigger on a redhat system with the broken compiler. And to satisfy your agument that people may need to be able to use it, provide a reverse patch to remove this safeguard in one easy cat file | patch.

    Brian Wolfe

    On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 01:06:52AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
    > Alan Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
    > > > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
    > > > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
    > > > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he decides
    > > > to outlaw gcc-2.96[.0] for reiserfs compiles.
    > >
    > > Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
    > > say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
    > > mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in nobody will
    > > read it and if you dont put anything in you get the odd bug report anyway.
    > >
    > > Basically you can't win and unfortunately a shrink wrap forcing the user
    > > to read the README file for the kernel violates the GPL ..
    > >
    > > Jaded, me ?
    > >
    > > Alan
    > I fear that you are speaking from experience about the complaints it doesn't
    > build, and that there is a strong element of truth in what you say.
    > That said, my opinion is that bug reporting load is not as important as bug
    > avoidance, but I understand your position has merit to it also.
    > Hans
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.027 / U:7.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site