On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > on 13/12/2012 09:16 Adrian Chadd said the following: >> Hi, >> >> I think the fundamental problem here is we have some pretty different >> ideas of what KASSERT should be, versus what it actually is in various >> parts of the code. > > Oh, and another part of the problem is that the discussion is opinion based. > But it didn't have to be. > > Compare this: > We think that feature F is a very good idea, we think that it will be used by > many > people and it will provide a lot of benefits. So here you are - the code is > in > the tree. > > To this: > We have been using feature F, it has proved to be a very good idea as it > provided > these benefits and spared us from these problems. So here you are - the code > is > in the tree. > > If I have a differing opinion in the first case I usually state it (and can be > pulled into an argument about it). If I have a different opinion in the > second > case, I try to adjust my opinion to the stated reality. > >> Since we're lost in semantics, we're not going to get any further on >> this discussion just for now, so let's take a break and think about >> other things for now.
Tools, not policy. A non-panic-ing KASSERT is a tool, not enabled by default. You don't need to use it. Someone does, so why can't we provide the tool? Thanks, matthew _______________________________________________ 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"
