on 16/12/2012 07:00 Ian Lepore said the following: > The question here isn't whether aborting or continuing beyond that point > is a good idea. Some developer already made that choice by coding a > KASSERT() instead of a panic(). The developer decided that a production > machine should try to keep running at that point.
Please don't perpetuate this argument. The point of KASSERT is not that the developer intended that the system should try to keep running in production. The point is that (1) the KASSERT should not be hit in production as was established in testing *and* (2) having all KASSERTs enabled in production is too expensive. That's all. -- 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"
