Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:39:32 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: cem@freebsd.org Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: KASSERT: always assert; KWARN Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokyEnAEGPuqj7b_V5RPFxQ3XfoFOu%2BiVYpejTdMH%2B-5Pw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG6CVpWzuK6cZx3QnQhKOu=6GZBJF4cJQdNXgJZeXYhuJJANJg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG6CVpWzuK6cZx3QnQhKOu=6GZBJF4cJQdNXgJZeXYhuJJANJg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
i found it very useful to get asserts to print, rather than panic. -a On 10 May 2016 at 18:24, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote: > I'd like to logically revert r243980 and r244105, such that KASSERT > uses the __dead2-annotated panic(9). > > Going back to the old behavior enables Coverity and other static > analyzers to reason about KASSERT invariants via the __dead2 panic(9) > path. > > This proposal is in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6117 . > > As a follow-up, to match the assumed intent of the r243980 changes, I > propose a KWARN facility which may be muted, rate limited, or even > cause panic. Generally, KASSERTs should not be KWARNs. That proposal > is here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6134 > > Finally, I am looking for suggestions of things it *does* make sense > to KWARN about. One suggestion was witness_warn; however, it doesn't > seem like a great fit (without adding allocating sbufs in, anyway). A > sketch of that is in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6306 . > > Thoughts or objections? Does anyone like the ability to opt out of > invariants asserts? > > Best, > Conrad > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokyEnAEGPuqj7b_V5RPFxQ3XfoFOu%2BiVYpejTdMH%2B-5Pw>