Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:11:40 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com Cc: bright@mu.org, sam@errno.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <20030121.221140.78708845.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20030122002340.GK42333@elvis.mu.org> <20030121.192436.65876718.imp@bsdimp.com> <200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621@apollo.backplane.com>
Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes:
: has been misused so often that we really have to make it explicit. But
: we shouldn't panic in this case, instead we should printf() (else third
: party modules may create unecessary crashes for the next couple of years).
This is actually better than my original idea (which seems to have
been misunderstood). My original idea was to have the extra checks
only if INVARIANTS was set. However, I like the idea of having a
printf like we do now with LOR and the sleep warnings better (maybe
with the option to drop into the debugger/panic like the witness stuff
does).
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030121.221140.78708845.imp>