> it's definitely not what he wrote.
I feel like we must have read two different articles. You sound crazy. Didn't read it your way at all.
> Think of that "debugging tools give a huge warning" as being the
equivalent of std::panic in standard rust. Yes, the kernel will
continue (unless you have panic-on-warn set), because the kernel
MUST continue in order for that "report to upstream" to have a
chance of happening.
"If the kernel shuts down the world, we don't get the bug report", seems like a pretty good argument. There are two options when you hit a panic in rust code:
* Panic and shut it all down. This prevents any reporting mechanism like a core dump. You cannot attach a normal debugger to the kernel.
* Ignore the panic and proceed with the information it failed, reporting this failure later.
The kernel is a single program, so it's not like you could just fork it before every Rust call and fail if they fail.
I feel like we must have read two different articles. You sound crazy. Didn't read it your way at all.
> Think of that "debugging tools give a huge warning" as being the equivalent of std::panic in standard rust. Yes, the kernel will continue (unless you have panic-on-warn set), because the kernel MUST continue in order for that "report to upstream" to have a chance of happening.
"If the kernel shuts down the world, we don't get the bug report", seems like a pretty good argument. There are two options when you hit a panic in rust code:
* Panic and shut it all down. This prevents any reporting mechanism like a core dump. You cannot attach a normal debugger to the kernel.
* Ignore the panic and proceed with the information it failed, reporting this failure later.
The kernel is a single program, so it's not like you could just fork it before every Rust call and fail if they fail.