Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:14:40 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS SPS Perth <shocking@prth.pgs.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, poul@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Another current crash (cvs-cur.6183 Message-ID: <200003230014.QAA94423@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003221239440.80766-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
:> But it might actually make a lot of sense to make INVARIANTS the
:> default this early in the -CURRENT cycle, protests ?
:
: What kind of overhead does it add? The warning messages in LINT
:look rather dire to me, but I'm interested in knowing the facts..
:
:Doug
The overhead is minimal. INVARIANTS was originally put in because
DIAGNOSTIC was being too nasty to the system. So nasty, in fact,
that it could crash the system all by itself in certain situations.
You can think of INVARIANTS as a light-weight non-intrusive version
of DIAGNOSTIC.
Frankly, I have INVARIANTS (and INVARIANT_SUPPORT) turned on by default
on all of my kernels.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003230014.QAA94423>