Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:16:44 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Nick Hibma <n_hibma@calcaphon.com> Cc: new-bus@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Debugger vs panic Message-ID: <200006271916.NAA48317@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:59:41 BST." <Pine.BSF.4.20.0006271149030.13143-100000@localhost> References: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0006271149030.13143-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.20.0006271149030.13143-100000@localhost> Nick Hibma writes: : He was quite persistent in his opinion that it was a bug in the code and : could only lead to faults later in the code. He'd rather have the : problem pointed out right where it occurs. And I agree with him to the : extent that if there is a problem it should go pop as early as possible : in the appropriate place, and not at a later stage where you will have : to trace back to the place where the value was last written, which might : be complicated to say the least. I'd rather have a #define that I can give to have it fail out rather than panic. Why? I don't like rebuildnig my disks. When I'm debugging new drivers, I tend to make bonehead mistakes, especially in the bridge driver I'm working on. I've wasted lots and lots of time because of these panics. It would be nicer if I could #define way the panic when I want. For most people, they will want to keep the panics. For me, and other ard core developers the panics do negative good. I guess I want a "debugging expert" flag that says that I'll fix anything that causes a kernel printf and to please just print and fail exit rather than do a full panic for silly things. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-new-bus" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006271916.NAA48317>