Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:34:33 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, mike@karels.net, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic messages() Message-ID: <5DCB8A72-ABD8-4E8B-8595-EDEBEE70C6AB@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <201302120615.r1C6FpP8086860@chez.mckusick.com> References: <201302120615.r1C6FpP8086860@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Kirk McKusick wrote: >> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> >> cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd = <adrian@freebsd.org>, >> Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, >> Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org >> From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> >> Subject: Re: Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic = messages()=20 >> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:01:07 -0600 >>=20 >> I'm not arguing against consistency, nor even agaist the proposal = itself >> (as modified for a lower-case panic macro). However, I don't think = the >> lack of consistency is the real problem. "panic: watchdog timeout" = tells >> me what I need to know, whether or not it includes "watchdog_fire" or = the >> line number. The only problem that has been pointed out is lack of >> uniqueness. That is a simpler problem to handle, and isn't handled = by >> the current proposal as I understand it. >>=20 >> Mike >=20 > Though the default for the current proposal gives just the function = name, > in its verbose mode it give file, function, and line number. And in = its > lean and mean mode, just the error string. This replacing the = hodge-podge > that we have now. My main point is that it is a significant = improvement > over what we have now. I'm all for consistency, and I'm also all for having knobs that let = people limit what is printed. In some environments, I'd love to have the = file/line number. Why? Because I'm lazy and it saves me a grep: I'd be = trading space for convenience. In others, where I'm more space = constrained, I'd love to just have the raw message and suffer the = ambiguity we have today (or fix things so they aren't ambiguous). I too am having difficulty understanding the resistance to the basic = proposal: (1) Make panic messages suck less by removing bogus function names. (2) Hack the panic() to make it a macro so you can add function name or = file + line or the MJD of the last leap second to the panic messages. (1) is like no-brainer yes. (2) is infinite bike-shed land, but if we = have the basic macro there, maybe with a simple/gaudy kernel config then = people that want a different kind of gaudy have an easy hack. I'm still having trouble seeing the down side, except maybe your brand = of gaudy is considered too passe' to be allowed in :) Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5DCB8A72-ABD8-4E8B-8595-EDEBEE70C6AB>