On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:24:13PM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote: > > On Jun,Thursday 16 2011, at 5:30 PM, 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 like this we should definitely set DDB_COMMANDONENTER to something like > above.
be carefull though; this can easily output more than the 25 lines of a VGA display; and so usefull information (like the panic message) may have dissapeared. -- Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --