On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:55:55PM -0500, Jed Davis wrote:
> Looking at them again, they are:
> 
> 1) That the cycle counter hasn't gone backwards (or stopped).
> 2) That >1s doesn't seem to have passed, in xen_microtime, since
>    the last clock interrupt.
> 3) That hardclock(9) hasn't set the time back nor advanced it by >1s.
> 
> Part of my intent here was to avoid the situation that started this,
> where unreasonable values got into cc_microtime, because the underlying
> "hardware" wasn't behaving as assumed, and then passed on into userland.
> 
> > i don't think assertions are appropriate for this kind of things.
> 
> Looking at this again, I think I agree.  But I'm not sure if they should
> become printf's conditionalized on DEBUG, or removed/commented out, or
> something else.

Please leave them as DEBUG printf. The KASSERT would probably cause a panic
for suspend/resume (once we get there), but a printf can help detect if
something goes bad.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--