on 13/12/2012 00:27 Alfred Perlstein said the following: > On 12/12/12 2:15 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 12 December 2012 13:58, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >>> (Note that the primary reason I know for people not running with INVARIANTS >>> enabled is not that they don't want panics, but that they don't want the >>> performance hit.) >> Well, it would be nice to be able to enable invariants on some >> shipping "debug" versions of images in order to gather more data >> without crashing the kernel. > Yes, two of my employers were more of "we want to get more debug metrics, we > have the spare cycles, but we can't deal with superfluous panics". > > It also allows us "non-architects" to slip in a debug image when we have spare > cpu without getting yelled at for "crashing the $foo".
There is clearly something wrong with this sort of mentality. If you find instances where a developer put panic(9) (or KASSERT or etc) to mean "maybe here is a bug, let's just panic", then let's get those things fixed. But most of assertions in our code that are know to me really mean that a real bug has already occurred, that portions of kernel state are corrupted and there is no going back to a sane state, only going forward to corrupting more and more. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
