Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:17:41 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFQ] make witness panic an option Message-ID: <50A57815.4060104@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=i=Amo_QqHi4GnGie0Gc0YnK3XaRKjvBO-=SFboFYPmA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=i=Amo_QqHi4GnGie0Gc0YnK3XaRKjvBO-=SFboFYPmA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/14/12 10:15 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi all, > > When debugging and writing wireless drivers/stack code, I like to > sprinkle lots of locking assertions everywhere. However, this does > cause things to panic quite often during active development. > > This patch (against stable/9) makes the actual panic itself > configurable. It still prints the message regardless. > > This has allowed me to sprinkle more locking assertions everywhere to > investigate whether particular paths have been hit or not. I don't > necessarily want those to panic the kernel. > > I'd like everyone to consider this for FreeBSD-HEAD. > > Thanks! Adrian, you seem be getting reluctance on your patch which is surprising since we have "witness_kdb" option which pretty much does exactly what you want... ...except where you need it to. That is unfortunate. Perhaps if you switched those panics to a WITNESS_WARN that would do what you need/want? You could pass a special flag into WITNESS_WARN that said "i'm going to pass you a NULL ptr for lock object... just behave as if there was an error". that should make things more concise. Will that be sufficient? -Alfred > > > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50A57815.4060104>