Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:39:09 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, "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: <38DAC73D.80287765@originative.co.uk> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003231730070.51855-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > > 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.. All you really need for INVARIANTS is a make variable, config can go away without us having to worry about that. Paul. 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?38DAC73D.80287765>