Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:09:10PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > I also don't think we did reach a consensus about this either.
> 
> Well, I object on adding only DIAGNOSTIC, without DEBUG and DDB trace
> enabled, as it is counter productive to the idea to gather more info.

I can't see how DEBUG can give more infos for KASSERT().
I can see how DDB trace will hide usefull infos from KASSERT().

> LOCKDEBUG would be useful as well, but its very significant effect to
> performance can be understood.
> 
> Also, it seems that nobody disagreed on enabling DDB trace (as well as
> adding DEBUG option).  What makes you think that we did not reach the
> consensus?

I did agree at fisrt, but then I sent
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2011/06/17/msg010736.html

also, there is an upgrade script which disable ddb.onpanic and I'm
not sure where it is (I just know it's disabling it every time I
upgrade and I have to remember re-enabling it).
Also, for this KASSERT() is not different from other panic,
adding back DIAGNOSTIC doesn't change anything in this area.
I think it's a separate issue.


> 
> > With DDB on panic you don't get a core dump, you just see the system
> > hang if running X11.
> > With trace (assuming you're not running X11), you have the usefull panic
> > message scroll away on a standard VGA screen.
> 
> Again, "call ddb_vgapost" was proposed.  You can still coredump, either

what will this do on a serial console ?
Again this is not different from other panics we may have in the kernel.

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