On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:45:12 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
KASSERT() in little inline functions gives a lot of bloat for such an
unlikely error. Stupid callers can still pass any garbage count
except 0.
Yes, this catches a specific case that hps raised a few years ago:
On Friday, December 03, 2010 5:16:51 am Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:45:12 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
KASSERT() in little inline functions gives a lot of bloat for such an
unlikely error. Stupid callers can still pass any garbage count
except 0.
On 3 December 2010 13:46, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, December 03, 2010 5:16:51 am Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:45:12 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
KASSERT() in little inline functions gives a lot of bloat for such an
unlikely error.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:27:13 +0100
Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'd say it depends on if the specific case that hps raised a few
years ago sentence part refers to an actual problem; i.e. did it
happen in practice? If yes, leaving KASSERTs looks like the best
option.
I've found hps's
On Friday, December 03, 2010 9:41:03 am Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:27:13 +0100
Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'd say it depends on if the specific case that hps raised a few
years ago sentence part refers to an actual problem; i.e. did it
happen in practice? If yes,
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:45:12 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
KASSERT() in little inline functions gives a lot of bloat for such an
unlikely error. Stupid callers can still pass any garbage count
except 0.
Yes, this catches a specific