On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 05:50:56PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >
> > - 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". :)
>
> I'm not in favor of LOCKDEBUG by default, for reasons already stated here.
Also, could LOCKDEBUG have ABI issues with modules ?
I've only ever used LOCKDEBUG with non-MODULAR kernels ...
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
