On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:01:22AM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote: > On Tue Jan 29 2008 at 03:48:57 +0000, David Holland wrote: > > > > No, they don't. In the long run I'm intending to fix at least the > > vnode locks, because IMO they should be interruptible, but that'll > > likely be a slow process. > > While this is theoretically a good idea, I am not sure it won't introduce > more bugs than it works around. Every lock call would demand an error > path, and error paths are usually good at one thing: not being tested > at all. Increased code clutter is another downside. Then we just need to add code coverage frameworks to puffs & friends. :-) Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpMv2joxPihU.pgp
Description: PGP signature