Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:27:33 +0100 From: Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFQ] make witness panic an option Message-ID: <CACfq090EiEiG7Ou2ZMUafWN6GLT9RNK1Q4tiOHnOBWe8GYJDjA@mail.gmail.com> 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 Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> 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. I really do think that is a very bad idea. When a locking assertion fails you have just to stop your mind and think what's wrong, no way to postpone on this. -- Gianni
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACfq090EiEiG7Ou2ZMUafWN6GLT9RNK1Q4tiOHnOBWe8GYJDjA>