On 12/12/12 4:02 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
On 12/12/12 14:48, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 12/12/12 2:29 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Now we get a new middle-ground: get both worse performance (because
KASSERTs are compiled in) and a risk of harming your data (because
KASSERTs no longer panic). The upside: there is no panic! There's just
a log message (or etc). and chance to get more log messages because
the insanity propagates. And a chance to lose your data (your
customer's) - but I've already mentioned this. I am not sure that I
like this kind of middle-ground.
I have a number of points here:
The most important one being:
1) without kassert you would still have the bug, just that it would be
unreported.
The upside: there is no panic! There's **NO** log message (or etc).
and chance to get more log messages because the insanity propagates.
Terrible!
Let me explain that again:
If you don't compile in KASSERT, then it's not like the condition is
never going to happen. Instead it will just be unreported.
A KASSERT() really is for a condition that should never happen. It is
primarily useful during development and testing (and when the code is
reworked or redesigned). I agree with Andriy here -- a non-fatal assert
shouldn't really exist.
What do you think happens to a FreeBSD kernel when INVARIANTS is
compiled in and it trips an assertion after my change?
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
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"
