On 17.12.2012 23:12, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 18/12/2012 00:02 Adrian Chadd said the following:
Why are they there, if we just ship production releases with
INVARIANTS disabled?
Because there is an axis orthogonal to asserting correctness - performance.
Indeed. There are, or will be, a couple of very intrusive and expensive
mbuf and socket buffer integrity checks under KASSERT/INVARIANTS that are
not appropriate and performance reducing for productions kernels. The
same goes for UMA memory fuzzing. I've always used and placed KASSERTs
with this assumption.
I do have some sympathy for a certain run-time KASSERT() check that will
print a backtrace but won't panic. However it is a distinct class from
what we have now and needs to be explicitly placed by the programmer to
make sense with the logic around it.
--
Andre
_______________________________________________
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"
