Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:21:03 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: KASSERT_WARN for asserting malloc(M_WAITOK) not in a non-sleepable thread Message-ID: <1411669263.66615.249.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CACYV=-HDVxhQ=CDK7HWuK2t-rsFkW2gKD45NDjC86jQ2wq6v9A@mail.gmail.com> References: <54236CD6.4050807@FreeBSD.org> <CACYV=-Eg69AQ72DOGppPSL7whJVCdcNg-auhBZ771iG7DfPdAw@mail.gmail.com> <5424392D.9030201@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-Vmok5Xaa6aZvfL1GoW8C==dY47P=vKAEZhu16JhHjV%2BTk9g@mail.gmail.com> <CACYV=-GMpMxEAs-X7umMdYX2Awf3G0La1cUGsXeH9MoX34CdxQ@mail.gmail.com> <1411668571.66615.247.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CACYV=-HDVxhQ=CDK7HWuK2t-rsFkW2gKD45NDjC86jQ2wq6v9A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 11:16 -0700, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 10:51 -0700, Davide Italiano wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Please bring in KASSERT_WARN().
> >> >
> >> > I'm grown up enough to use KASSERT_WARN() along with handling the
> >> > invariant check myself in code. Having KASSERT_WARN() means I can add
> >> > in this rather than printf()s or device_printf()'s with various knobs
> >> > to remove it.
> >> >
> >> > (This is absolutely _not_ the "should KASSERT() optionally just log"
> >> > argument. I'm not going to get into that a second time.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> If you put a KASSERT() inside your code -- probably you should be
> >> careful enough to put that iff you're sure that it should be always
> >> verified. No exceptions.
> >> People tend to be very lazy (including me). I don't expect everybody
> >> diligently upgrading KASSERT_WARN to KASSERT. So KASSERT_WARN start
> >> becoming more and more widespread, and people realize all of these
> >> need to be upgraded to KASSERT or removed. This generally happens
> >> after years. Yet. Another. Crusade.
> >> There's a lot of work in the kernel to remove old/wrong/naive KPI
> >> from the kernel. jhb@ is looking at timeout()-> callout() conversion.
> >> I'm personally looking at dev_clone() removal. There are a lot of
> >> other examples.
> >> Adding KASSERT_WARN is a step backward, not a step forward, IMHO.
> >> That said, if you want to pollute the kernel, fine. I expressed my
> >> opinion, and I'm personally not happy about this, but I never stated
> >> I'm gonna stop you from doing that.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > IMO, this entire argument is ridiculous. Some conditions are so insane
> > that you've got to stop immediately rather than make things worse.
> > Other conditions indicate problems, but the code can recover or
> > otherwise continue to operate safely. Trying to define every possible
> > anomalous condition as either fatal or not worth mentioning is insane.
> >
> > Everyone is free to write code such as
> >
> > #ifdef INVARIANTS
> > if (some_condition)
> > printf("whatever warning\n");
> > #endif
> >
> > So let's be clear here: the objections are to spelling that code
> > sequence KASSERT_WARN. If you object, please explain what's wrong with
> > that spelling and how you would prefer it to be spelled.
> >
> > -- Ian
> >
> >
>
> Take the assert out of the name. Call it DEBUG_WARN, or something else
> if you like.
> assert as a pretty *clear* and specific semantic, no need to mess
> around with it.
>
> Thanks,
>
To me, another "clear and specific semantic" that's associated with the
word 'assert' in C programming is that the test expression itself is
automatically printed as part of the diagnostic message. That's not the
case in the FreeBSD kernel, so I guess we need to rename KASSERT as
well?
-- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1411669263.66615.249.camel>