From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 7 19:11:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA02334 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA02319; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.6/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA04492; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:07:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611080307.TAA04492@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Michael Hancock cc: Terry Lambert , ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com, dyson@freefall.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: More info on the daily panics... In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 1996 11:46:13 +0900." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:07:52 -0800 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >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