On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Turns out that people will
> prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
> bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
But look at positive side:
1. really few people run development kernels despite the "performance" so
it probably will be with nondebug kernels.
2. production kernels get more solid
3. because there could be a lot more debug points in development kernels
4. Distributors are interested in shipping debug-kernels.
You see the part that lots of asserts and debug prints may go.
I see the advantage, that a lot of them can come, at no cost.
Besides, if you want to have some assert anyway, then do not write it with
system-wide macro but make your own or mark it as "included allways".
Faulty logic.
elmer.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Universal debug macros. Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Universal debug macros. H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Universal debug macros. Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Universal debug macros. H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Universal debug macros. Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Universal debug macros. H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Universal debug macros. Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Universal debug macros. H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Universal debug macros. Gerhard Mack
- Re: Universal debug macros. Rogier Wolff
- Re: Universal debug macros. Elmer Joandi
- Re: Universal debug macros. Rogier Wolff
- Re: Universal debug macros. Elmer Joandi
- Re: Universal debug macros. Peter Samuelson
- Re: Universal debug macros. Andrew E. Mileski
- Re: Universal debug macros. Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Universal debug macros. Andrew E. Mileski
- Re: Universal debug macros. Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Universal debug macros. Andrew E. Mileski
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Adam J. Richter
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Werner Almesberger

