Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_vlan.c Message-ID: <200608041644.08533.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060804200154.GC31805@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <200608030959.k739x9N6007207@repoman.freebsd.org> <200608041314.24161.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060804200154.GC31805@ns1.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 04 August 2006 16:01, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:14:22PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
> > > So, putting the kdb_backtrace() under KDB is not a matter of said
> > > function not being present without KDB, it's that we don't want
> > > to emit backtraces when debugging is not enabled. Backtraces are
> > > a debugging tool and it makes sense to emit them only when the
> > > kernel is configured for debugging.
> >
> > In practice this ends up being redundant though as to have kdb_backtrace()
> > actually do anything you have to have DDB in your kernel config, which
> > requires KDB.
>
> That's really an implementation detail. What if we get a new debugger
> backend that allows backtraces? What if the GDB backend is extended to
> allow backtraces?
In that case the user has specifically requested debugger support in their
kernel (whether it be DDB, GDB, or FOODB).
> The point is that kdb_backtrace() is there if you want a backtrace and
> you call it based on whatever option that makes sense at the call-site
> or even unconditionally if that's the right thing.
> Whether there's actually a backend that can make a backtrace is really
> a seperate issue. We just happen to implement backtracing and unwinding
> by debuggers, but with an unwinder in the kernel on ia64, we really
> don't need a debugger in order to make a backtrace and it's not that
> unrealistic that I create a backend that can only do backtraces...
To be honest, as someone who works with bug reports, I'd actually like
backtraces up front w/o requiring the user to compile a custom kernel, etc.
Having a simple backend in place and kdb_backtrace()'s where relevant would
be very handy. :)
> > Places that call kdb_enter() aren't all #ifdef KDB IIRC. It's
> > just a feature that kdb_foo() functions become NOPs when the kernel isn't
> > configured for debugging, so I think the #ifdef KDB's would be redundant.
>
> None of the kdb_*() functions in src/sys/kern/subr_kdb.c turn into
> NOPs when option KDB is not present. They are all unconditionally
> functional by design and should therefore be called conditionally
> by consequence.
Well, given that separation, I'm not sure KDB is the right option to make
calls conditional. Rather, some specific is-debugging-enabled? option (like
INARIANTS or FOO_DEBUG) should be used instead. i.e.:
#ifdef FOO_DEBUG
if (foo_bad) {
printf("foo is bad\n");
kdb_backtrace();
}
#endif
I don't think that warrants an extra #ifdef KDB.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200608041644.08533.jhb>