Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:07:52 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com, dyson@freefall.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: More info on the daily panics... Message-ID: <199611080307.TAA04492@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 1996 11:46:13 %2B0900." <Pine.SV4.3.95.961108111353.760C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> If you are really concerned that this will mask a future multiple vrele() >> problem, I suggest you put the assert in vrele() and prevent the queue >> from ever getting corrupted that way in the first place. > >We really need to engineer asserts into the kernel. They're kind of there >with the #ifdef DIAGNOSTICS stuff, but this is ugly I hate looking at >#ifdef's. I'm happy that we *have* a model. We've been down this road before. The asserts model isn't very well liked by a lot of people, including myself. It tends to bloat the sources with a lot of unuseful checks and isn't flexible enough to accomodate more algorithmically complex checks. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611080307.TAA04492>