From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 18 22:31:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BF4D1C; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA78FC15; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE1061A3D02; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:31:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50D0EED3.8020301@mu.org> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:31:47 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r244112 - head/sys/kern References: <201212110708.qBB78EWx025288@svn.freebsd.org> <201212171439.27297.jhb@freebsd.org> <50CF8CE7.4020906@mu.org> <201212181537.23341.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201212181537.23341.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:10:44 +0000 Cc: Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein , Andriy Gapon , Gleb Smirnoff , Robert Watson , Navdeep Parhar , Bruce Evans , svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:31:48 -0000 On 12/18/12 12:37 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:21:43 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> On 12/17/12 11:39 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:17 am Bruce Evans wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/14/12 4:12 PM, Robert Watson wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:02:15 am Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:48PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: A> The >>>>>>>> problem again is that not all the KASSERTS are inviolable, if you A> want >>>>>>>> to do a project to split them, then please do, it would really be A> >>>>>>>> helpful, as for now, they are a mis-mash of death/warnings and there are >>>>>>>> A> at least three vendors who approve of this as well as 3 long term A> >>>>>>>> committers that approved my change (not including Adrian). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you show examples of not inviolable KASSERTs? >>>>>>> There are none. They are all assertions for a reason. However, in my >>>> Not even one whose existence is a bug? :-) >>> They should just not exist at all then. :) All the more reason for them to >>> panic early and often so developers will be prompted to remove them. >>> >> This is hard to explain to a customer. >> >> customer: "So we ran your debug image and got you a panic, here is the >> information. So can you tell us what is the problem?" >> alfred: "well that is due to XXX other thing that is broken, thanks for >> helping us resolve that unrelated problem!" >> customer: "i hate you" >> alfred: "get in line." > Are your customers running HEAD? Assertions in a stable branch have been > through testing and generally aren't bogus, so dying on incorrect assertions > (meaning the assertion tripped for non-buggy code) should not be the common > case. Thus, that shouldn't really be the basis for an argument on this. > > I can also come up with arbitrary strawmen: > > customer: "help! we lost a bunch of data!" > jhb: "oh, well, I can see why: the box reported this critical error while > your data was still there, but it went ahead and corrupted it all > anyway even though it knew about the error because I thought you wanted > longer uptimes" > jhb: "don't worry, I have a patch to fix the error" > customer: "don't bother, we are switching to X" > Yes, that happens when they run -stable. -Alfred