aspaceman

Ease the snark space ranger.

> dynamic errors fail smaller granularity tasks and handlers deal with tasks failing due to safety checks going bad.

Yes and that's why Rust is bad here (but it doesn't have to be). Rust _forces_ you to stop the whole world when an error occurs. You cannot fail at a smaller granularity. You have to panic. Period. This is why it is being criticized here. It doesn't allow you any other granularity. The top comment has some alternatives that still work in Rust.

> 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.