Re: [PATCH] (int)0 = 0 & variations

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:43:48 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: fsck is dead (was: Some very thought-provoking ...)"
Previous message: Jurjen Oskam: "[BUG?] 2.2.10 kernel timer added twice at c1821de1."
In reply to: Christian Hammers: "direct (unbufferd) disk access"

> I don't think that kassert() and kassertoops() are required:
> kassert() should print all information that an oops would print, but
> then it tries to continue. The worst thing that could happen is an
> oops, so we win nothing by oopsing immediately.

Before re-inventing the wheel also take a look at the debugging macros
used in the rpc and nfs layer. They include run time configuration so you
can use sysctl to debug specific things

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: fsck is dead (was: Some very thought-provoking ...)"
Previous message: Jurjen Oskam: "[BUG?] 2.2.10 kernel timer added twice at c1821de1."
In reply to: Christian Hammers: "direct (unbufferd) disk access"

Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations

Re: [PATCH] (int)0 = 0 & variations