On 12/15/12 11:45 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 16/12/2012 07:00 Ian Lepore said the following:
The question here isn't whether aborting or continuing beyond that point
is a good idea. Some developer already made that choice by coding a
KASSERT() instead of a panic(). The developer decided that a production
machine should try to keep running at that point.
Please don't perpetuate this argument. The point of KASSERT is not that the
developer intended that the system should try to keep running in production.
The point is that (1) the KASSERT should not be hit in production as was
established in testing *and* (2) having all KASSERTs enabled in production is
too expensive. That's all.
I don't understand, we have a few partners running KASSERT enabled kernels.
Depending on workload our machines can have enough CPU free for this.
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
