Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:35:08 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New article Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003231730070.51855-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200003240126.SAA05518@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The legacy stuff, yes. I said so. :-) The kernel options... As I said
> > *some* as unavoidable. INVARIANTS?
>
> Get rid of all invariants.
options INVARIANTS turns on enforcement of invariants in the kernel as a
debugging aid. I'm not sure how it could be done dynamically at load time
without building two versions of all the modules. Perhaps it should be
made mandatory, but the slight performance penalty associated with it
might be a turnoff.
SMP/non-SMP is another case which has its conditional fingers in the
code. When you multiply all of the options together, having 2^n different
option combinations for each base module suddenly doesn't look so
attractive..
Kris
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0003231730070.51855-100000>