Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next] CODING_STYLE: Document how to handle unexpected conditions

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> 03/01/19 6:39 PM >>>
>On 3/1/19 5:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/28/19 7:50 PM >>>
>>> +* Programmers can use ASSERT(), which will cause the check to be
>>> +executed in DEBUG builds, and cause the hypervisor to crash if it's
>>> +violated
>> 
>> Is it perhaps worth calling out explicitly that the supposed crash may occur
>> much later, in a different context, and hence be perhaps rather difficult to
>> analyze/debug?
>
>Sorry, I don't quite understand this -- when you trigger an ASSERT() it
>crashes right away last time I checked.  Did you mean instead to reply
>to the ASSERT() section of the GUIDELINES, which says you can use ASSERT
>if it may have an effect later whose badness is equal to or less than a
>host crash?

I did indeed pick the wrong context for my reply, and had meant that
other place instead.


>It also occurs to me that ASSERT()s are really orthogonal to the other
>three: At each point, you should consider whether in a production
>hypervisor you should 1) do nothing, 2) return an error, 3) crash the
>domain, or 4) crash the hypervisor; and in the case of 1-3, you might
>also want to add an ASSERT to move the detection of unexpected state
>closer to the point where it happens.

Agreed.

Jan




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel