On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rm...@netbsd.org> 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 <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
