Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:16:21 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: restructuring of per-uid resource limits Message-ID: <200009052216.PAA25991@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009060505100.25034-100000@besplex.bde.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009060505100.25034-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 6, 5:11am, Bruce Evans wrote: } Subject: Re: Request for review: restructuring of per-uid resource limits } On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Don Lewis wrote: } } > My patch has KASSERT checks that look for ui_sbsize or ui_proccnt going } > negative, or not being zero when freeing the uidinfo structure. I } > could be convinced to make this checks mandatory. } } I think sanity checks (if any are implemented) should be mandatory in } new code. Done and committed. } Perhaps there should be several levels of KASSERTs, with at } least one level where the sanity checks are not mandatory (like the } current default of INVARIANTS not defined). That sounds good to me. Having to change the sense of the test to convert between "if (...) panic" and KASSERT as well as the other syntax changes basically sucks. 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?200009052216.PAA25991>