svn commit: r244112 - head/sys/kern

[Alfred Perlstein]

On 12/18/12 12:37 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:21:43 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> On 12/17/12 11:39 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:17 am Bruce Evans wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/14/12 4:12 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, John Baldwin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:02:15 am Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:48PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: A> The
>>>>>>>> problem again is that not all the KASSERTS are inviolable, if you A> want
>>>>>>>> to do a project to split them, then please do, it would really be A>
>>>>>>>> helpful, as for now, they are a mis-mash of death/warnings and there are
>>>>>>>> A> at least three vendors who approve of this as well as 3 long term A>
>>>>>>>> committers that approved my change (not including Adrian).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you show examples of not inviolable KASSERTs?
>>>>>>> There are none.  They are all assertions for a reason.  However, in my
>>>> Not even one whose existence is a bug? :-)
>>> They should just not exist at all then. :)  All the more reason for them to
>>> panic early and often so developers will be prompted to remove them.
>>>
>> This is hard to explain to a customer.
>>
>> customer: "So we ran your debug image and got you a panic, here is the
>> information.  So can you tell us what is the problem?"
>> alfred: "well that is due to XXX other thing that is broken, thanks for
>> helping us resolve that unrelated problem!"
>> customer: "i hate you"
>> alfred: "get in line."
> Are your customers running HEAD?  Assertions in a stable branch have been
> through testing and generally aren't bogus, so dying on incorrect assertions
> (meaning the assertion tripped for non-buggy code) should not be the common
> case.  Thus, that shouldn't really be the basis for an argument on this.
>
> I can also come up with arbitrary strawmen:
>
> customer: "help!  we lost a bunch of data!"
> jhb: "oh, well, I can see why: the box reported this critical error while
>        your data was still there, but it went ahead and corrupted it all
>        anyway even though it knew about the error because I thought you wanted
>        longer uptimes"
> jhb: "don't worry, I have a patch to fix the error"
> customer: "don't bother, we are switching to X"
>

Yes, that happens when they run -stable.

-Alfred