Re: add DIAGNOSTIC back to GENERIC/INSTALL

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> > I have few concerns:
> > 
> > - If we enable DIAGNOSTIC, then we should also enable DEBUG, as it also
> >   covers many relevant diagnostic checks.
> > 
> > - Alternatively, it should be clearly defined what goes under DEBUG,
> >   i.e. what is considered a "heavier check".  I think code diverged in
> >   a way that the difference between DEBUG and DIAGNOSTIC is small.
> > 
> > - Since performance is degraded and -current users concerned about it
> >   will need to compile their own kernels anyway - I believe LOCKDEBUG
> >   should be enabled as well.  Perhaps LOCKDEBUG should become a part
> >   of DEBUG - it is at least clearly a "heavier check". :)
> > 
> > - There MUST be a very clear indication to users - a warning in a visible
> >   place that the kernel has diagnostic options enabled, and performance
> >   is significantly degraded.
> > 
> > - Obviously, defined policy/responsibility to disable these options for
> >   release kernels.  In fact, if we go this way - then options should be
> >   removed from all MD kernel configs and managed in MI src/sys/conf/std.
> 
> - DDB_ONPANIC=1 and DDB_COMMANDONENTER="bt;show regsisters" and perhaps
>   also "call ddb_vgapost" in the beginning (not sure if there are any
>   potential side effects?).  Otherwise, not getting information from DDB
>   is just counter-productive, plus we get not very useful reports, when
>   backtrace is missing.

I also agree.

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