From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jun 20 16: 1:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93C237B421 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020620230020.ZNWV11426.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:00:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA32984; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Sam Leffler Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DIAGNOSTIC vs. INVARIANTS In-Reply-To: <124a01c2189b$72df9cd0$52557f42@errno.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG yes. On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: > It seems #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC is not used uniformly in the kernel. > Specifically, it seems any code of the form: > > #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC > if (some check) > panic("some check failed..."); > #endif > > should instead be controlled by INVARIANTS as in > > KASSERT(some check, ("some check failed...")); > > I read DIAGNOSTIC to be intended to control inclusion of code that _prints > diagnostic messages_ or similar and not code that does consistency checks. > > Comments? > > Sam > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message