From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 12 06:10:16 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EE5259;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:10:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@karels.net)
Received: from mail.karels.net (mail.karels.net [IPv6:2001:470:c004::5])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEE1691;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.karels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.karels.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1C617Q9006038;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:01:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from mike@karels.net)
Message-Id: <201302120601.r1C617Q9006038@mail.karels.net>
To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic messages() 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:33:33 -0800.
 <201302120433.r1C4XXrx064843@chez.mckusick.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:01:07 -0600
Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>,
 Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>,
 freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mike@karels.net
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:10:16 -0000

> 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