The reason I haven't yet committed it is I'd like to sit down with
Attilio one-on-one and figure out the _right_ way to do this.
There's a time for shit-stirring and a time for getting stuff done;
this is neither of those times. I don't mind taking my time on this
one.
Adrian
__
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
>> wrote:
>> > WITNESS is a development tool. We don't ship production kernels with
>> > WITNESS even compiled in. W
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:48:23PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:37:19PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pa
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:48:23PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:37:19PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:1
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:37:19PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, P
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:37:19PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
> >> wrote:
> >> > WITNESS is a development tool.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
>> wrote:
>> > WITNESS is a development tool. We don't ship production kernels with
>> > WITNESS even compiled in. W
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
> wrote:
> > WITNESS is a development tool. We don't ship production kernels with
> > WITNESS even compiled in. What is more efficient use of developer time:
> > going through full
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:39:55PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I really do think that is a very bad idea.
>> >> When a locki
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:39:55PM +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I really do think that is a very bad idea.
> >> When a locking assertion fails you have just to stop your mind and
> >> think what
On 11/16/12 10:18 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 16 November 2012 00:26, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Adding another option to tag asserts so that it was sort of like:
KASSERT((cond, section, "string")); would be interesting, then you could
turn KASSERTS on based on "vfs" or possibly file by file.
Th
On 16 November 2012 00:26, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Adding another option to tag asserts so that it was sort of like:
>
> KASSERT((cond, section, "string")); would be interesting, then you could
> turn KASSERTS on based on "vfs" or possibly file by file.
That's orthogonal to my developer-focuse
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/11/2012 01:38 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following:
But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to
>
On 11/15/12 11:22 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 16/11/2012 01:20 Alfred Perlstein said the following:
We need to enable developers to skip these areas and test their own code.
I wish that there was a magic knob to ignore build breakages, so that the
developers could test how their own code compile
on 16/11/2012 01:20 Alfred Perlstein said the following:
> We need to enable developers to skip these areas and test their own code.
I wish that there was a magic knob to ignore build breakages, so that the
developers could test how their own code compiles :-)
On a serious note, why stop here? E
on 16/11/2012 01:38 Attilio Rao said the following:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>>> But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to
>>> improve and debug the locking and lock interactions of a
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>> But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to
>> improve and debug the locking and lock interactions of a subsystem.
>
> My practical experience was that if you m
On 11/15/12 12:51 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following:
But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to
improve and debug the locking and lock interactions of a subsystem.
My practical experience was that if you mess up one lock in o
On 11/14/12 10:15 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi all,
When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this does
cause things to panic quite often during active development.
This patch (against stable/9) makes the actual pani
on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to
> improve and debug the locking and lock interactions of a subsystem.
My practical experience was that if you mess up one lock in one place, then it
is a total mess further
On 15 November 2012 11:55, Ian Lepore wrote:
> Since you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you are not
> open to anyone else's opinion and won't change your mind, I'm not going
> to waste even 10 seconds explaining my perfectly valid needs.
>
> I'll just keep hacking the code up to
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 17:47 +, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On 11/15/12, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
> >> sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, t
on 15/11/2012 19:56 Warner Losh said the following:
> It sounds like he's more worried about introducing LoRs into his wireless
> code.
"Mere" LORs do not result in panic, by default.
Only more serious lock-related issues lead to panics.
--
Andriy Gapon
_
On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 10:01, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> I think that your worries are focused more around the latter than the
>> former, which can be easilly shut down already today.
>>
>> And frankly I will never be in favor of a patch that automatically
>> shutdowns
On 15 November 2012 10:01, Attilio Rao wrote:
> I think that your worries are focused more around the latter than the
> former, which can be easilly shut down already today.
>
> And frankly I will never be in favor of a patch that automatically
> shutdowns lock assertion. Please patch your local c
On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 09:56, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>>> Do you really think that an abusable mechanism will help here rather
>
>> It sounds like he's more worried about introducing LoRs into his wireless
>> code. They are harmless, for him, and he can fix them by re
On 15 November 2012 09:56, Warner Losh wrote:
>> Do you really think that an abusable mechanism will help here rather
> It sounds like he's more worried about introducing LoRs into his wireless
> code. They are harmless, for him, and he can fix them by reloading the
> driver. They are only har
On 11/15/12, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/12, Ian Lepore wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi all,
When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
sprinkle lots of lockin
On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On 11/15/12, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
>>> sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this doe
On 11/15/12, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
>> sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this does
>> cause things to panic quite often during active develo
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
> sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this does
> cause things to panic quite often during active development.
>
> This patch (against stable
On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra
> wrote:
>
>> I really do think that is a very bad idea.
>> When a locking assertion fails you have just to stop your mind and
>> think what's wrong,
>> no way to postpone on this.
>
> Not all witness panics are act
On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra
wrote:
> I really do think that is a very bad idea.
> When a locking assertion fails you have just to stop your mind and
> think what's wrong,
> no way to postpone on this.
Not all witness panics are actually fatal. For a developer who is
sufficient
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to
> sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this does
> cause things to panic quite often during active development.
>
> This patch (against stable/9)
34 matches
Mail list logo
