Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:37:51 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFQ] make witness panic an option Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonE3myRyeZ%2BAe0ZOXf7wKvC44rRVkFfDaEwnk8C-=5uoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACfq090EiEiG7Ou2ZMUafWN6GLT9RNK1Q4tiOHnOBWe8GYJDjA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=i=Amo_QqHi4GnGie0Gc0YnK3XaRKjvBO-=SFboFYPmA@mail.gmail.com> <CACfq090EiEiG7Ou2ZMUafWN6GLT9RNK1Q4tiOHnOBWe8GYJDjA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Not all witness panics are actually fatal. For a developer who is sufficiently cluey in their area, they are quite likely able to just stare at the code paths for a while to figure out why the incorrectness occured. As I said, I do this primarily so I can sprinkle lots of lock owned/unowned assertions around my driver(s) and then use that to catch when things aren't being correct. Having to reboot upon _every_ lock assertion quickly got old. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonE3myRyeZ%2BAe0ZOXf7wKvC44rRVkFfDaEwnk8C-=5uoA>