Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:09:55 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Navdeep Parhar <np@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r244112 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <50C91CD3.7030900@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <50C91B32.4080904@FreeBSD.org> References: <201212110708.qBB78EWx025288@svn.freebsd.org> <201212121046.43706.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=U04GX%2BZyKuzXLwV%2BPpzU6_dm5BCmL=DWfsmhTVAR%2BsA@mail.gmail.com> <201212121658.49048.jhb@freebsd.org> <50C90567.8080406@FreeBSD.org> <50C909BD.9090709@mu.org> <50C91B32.4080904@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/12 4:02 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > On 12/12/12 14:48, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> On 12/12/12 2:29 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Now we get a new middle-ground: get both worse performance (because >>> KASSERTs are compiled in) and a risk of harming your data (because >>> KASSERTs no longer panic). The upside: there is no panic! There's just >>> a log message (or etc). and chance to get more log messages because >>> the insanity propagates. And a chance to lose your data (your >>> customer's) - but I've already mentioned this. I am not sure that I >>> like this kind of middle-ground. >> I have a number of points here: >> >> The most important one being: >> 1) without kassert you would still have the bug, just that it would be >> unreported. >> The upside: there is no panic! There's **NO** log message (or etc). >> and chance to get more log messages because the insanity propagates. >> >> Terrible! >> >> Let me explain that again: >> If you don't compile in KASSERT, then it's not like the condition is >> never going to happen. Instead it will just be unreported. > A KASSERT() really is for a condition that should never happen. It is > primarily useful during development and testing (and when the code is > reworked or redesigned). I agree with Andriy here -- a non-fatal assert > shouldn't really exist. What do you think happens to a FreeBSD kernel when INVARIANTS is compiled in and it trips an assertion after my change? -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50C91CD3.7030900>