Re: Useful KERNEL_ASSERT Macro

Kent Overstreet (kento@pobox.alaska.net)
Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:14:36 -0800


Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
> On 1999-07-31T01:59:40,
> Kent Overstreet <kento@pobox.alaska.net> said:
>
> > What about implementing this specific to the function? i.e. you usually
> > wouldn't turn on all the asserts, just the ones for the function you
> > thought had the bug.
>
> Maximum debug mode is an exceptionally good idea. "Writing Solid Code" calls
> this "Fortify your subsystems" and I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> The ones who you thought had the bug are most likely to be the ones who are
> perfectly fine, if we pay any attention to Murphy ;-)

Sure, you want the assertions in more than one file, and I definately
agree that you want as many as possible, what I meant was if you're
having (for example) a problem with file system corruption, the bug
probably isn't going to be in the ethernet driver or the video4linux
drivers. And if you're debugging a device driver your're writing, you'll
probably know the exact file the problems are in. Sure, there will be
times when the bug could be anywhere, but usually you have at least
*some* idea where the bug is. Then, if you can't find it at first, maybe
*later* you can go in and put it/turn on the assertions for the entire
kernel.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/