Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:01:07 -0600 From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic messages() Message-ID: <201302120601.r1C617Q9006038@mail.karels.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:33:33 -0800. <201302120433.r1C4XXrx064843@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have having difficulty understanding the resistance to bringing > consistency to something that badly lacks it now. Along with the > ability to get rid of the extra space when needed or to add to it > when desired. The arguement that it is crap, but who cares because > we can work around it when we have someone offering to do the not > insignificant work to clean it up seems out of character with our > vision of a clean code base. I'm not arguing against consistency, nor even agaist the proposal itself (as modified for a lower-case panic macro). However, I don't think the lack of consistency is the real problem. "panic: watchdog timeout" tells me what I need to know, whether or not it includes "watchdog_fire" or the line number. The only problem that has been pointed out is lack of uniqueness. That is a simpler problem to handle, and isn't handled by the current proposal as I understand it. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302120601.r1C617Q9006038>