In article <20051030180119.GD4642@spathi.chuq.com>,
Chuck Silvers  <chuq@chuq.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:39:11PM -0500, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
>> Chuck Silvers <chuq@chuq.com> writes:
>> 
>> > does anyone object to turning off DIAGNOSTIC in all the GENERIC configs?
>> > this seems like reasonable anyway, and it fixes this issue in nicely.
>> 
>> Why is this preferable to turning *on* DIAGNOSTIC in all the GENERIC
>> configs?
>
>to use i386 as an example, DIAGNOSTIC was originally on but later turned off
>with this explanation:
>
>----------------------------
>revision 1.403
>date: 2001/04/21 20:49:14;  author: fvdl;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
>Move the DIAGNOSTIC option to a seperate config file, it's too expensive
>to be in GENERIC (which should be a kernel ready for production use).
>----------------------------
>
>so unless someone can show that DIAGNOSTIC no longer causes any noticable
>performance impact, it should stay off here.  it seems likely that if there
>was a performance impact on this platform then there would be on all the
>others too, so it should be off in their GENERICs for the same reason.
>unless you disagree with the original rationale for turning it off here.  :-)

I think that DIAGNOSTIC and DEBUG do not belong in GENERIC kernels.

christos