Hi! 5-Янв-2005 12:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> :) We can't protect from such hardware failures (when executed random >>pieces of code). :( PV> Actually, you can. No - because hardware failures (on which code works) may be _very_ different and all of them is unpredictable. Hm. After rereading your (skipped) paragraph, I suggest that you mean "for handling external event was called code, which earlier wasn't tested". In this case, we discuss not "hardware failure", but "untested code". PV> Changing something like this is the difference PV> between a stable and unstable kernel. BTW -- that wasn't random code PV> execution. It was an untested piece of code that didn't get executed PV> because that hardware failure never occurred. But in given case (`break' after `return_user()') there are _no_ untested code, and return_user() doesn't returns back to switch in inthndlr.c unconditionally. So, `break' there is _really_ not need, but its missing (or missing comment about it) may mislead programmer and somewhat affect optimizer. PV> How much of the kernel PV> can any of us say has actually been executed? Are there any hardware PV> error cases that are not caught in the driver or has just not been PV> exercised because the error almost never happens? ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel