svn commit: r244112 - head/sys/kern

[Alfred Perlstein]

On 12/15/12 11:45 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/12/2012 07:00 Ian Lepore said the following:
>> The question here isn't whether aborting or continuing beyond that point
>> is a good idea.  Some developer already made that choice by coding a
>> KASSERT() instead of a panic().  The developer decided that a production
>> machine should try to keep running at that point.
> Please don't perpetuate this argument.  The point of KASSERT is not that the
> developer intended that the system should try to keep running in production.
> The point is that (1) the KASSERT should not be hit in production as was
> established in testing *and* (2) having all KASSERTs enabled in production is
> too expensive.  That's all.
>
I don't understand, we have a few partners running KASSERT enabled kernels.

Depending on workload our machines can have enough CPU free for this.

-Alfred