Subject: Re: NEW_BUFQ really cool!
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Sean Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/30/2003 16:55:05
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:56:11PM +0200, Christian Biere wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar <email@example.com> wrote:
> > my system works for 6 days, no crash, no errors in dmesg, loaded all
> > the time quite heavy.
> > shouldn't NEW_BUFQ be default?
> Aren't wscons (for i386) and softdep used by default in 1.6? I can use
> bugs in both to crash NetBSD instantly. IMHO, the filesystem is really
> the most crucial part because corrupted executables or a corrupted
> swap could cause total havoc to a system even if everything else is
> virtually bug-free. Thus, I'd be very careful with turning on with
> features by default - I highly assume the maintainers are. Especially,
> if you're using i386, a stable system might prove little as it's the
> most used architecture and bugs which affect only other architectures
> often remain unnoticed for a long time.
Are you referring to 1.6 the release or current? I don't remember hearing
about any softdep or wscons bugs that can "crash netbsd instantly", as you
say. Perhaps you can provide some more details?
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!