From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 15 16:32:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03134
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03122;
          Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id BAA25440;
	Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:32:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:32:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199709152332.BAA25440@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.ORG>
CC: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Poul-Henning Kamp's message of Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:27:41 -0700
	(PDT)
Subject: Pre-conditions (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/nfs nfs_vnops.c)
References: <199709102127.OAA23352@freefall.freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> phk         1997/09/10 14:27:41 PDT
> 
>   Modified files:
>     sys/nfs              nfs_vnops.c 
>   Log:
>   Don't repeat checks done at general level.

On a fairly general level: I'd have changed these to consistency
checks enclosed in #if DEBUG/#endif, and a panic (lacking a good
standardized assert facility; assert() is message-less and thus not
good enough).  I like to make 'each routine its own castle' in
debugging mode, not trusting ANYTHING that is passed in from anywhere.

How is this for other people?  Is that considered unnecessary
cluttering of the sources?  Done correctly, I find it a very good form
of documentation of each functions pre-conditions (and possibly
post-conditions/invariants, but that is much more clutter).

Eivind.