>>>>> "Mikulas" == Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: Mikulas> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, John Stoffel wrote: >> >>>>> "James" == James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> James> I may be an atypical developer but I'd rather have a root canal James> than browse through menuconfig options. The way to get people James> to learn about new debugging options is to blog about it (or James> write an lwn.net article) which google will find the next time James> I ask it how I debug XXX. Google (probably as a service to James> humanity) rarely turns up Kconfig options in response to a James> query. >> >> I agree with James here. Looking at the SLAB vs SLUB Kconfig entries >> tells me *nothing* about why I should pick one or the other, as an >> example. >> >> John Mikulas> I see your point - and I think the misunderstanding is this. Thanks. Mikulas> This patch is not really helping people to debug existing crashes. It is Mikulas> not like "you get a crash" - "you google for some keywords" - "you get a Mikulas> page that suggests to turn this option on" - "you turn it on and solve the Mikulas> crash". Mikulas> What this patch really does is that - it makes the kernel deliberately Mikulas> crash in a situation when the code violates the specification, but it Mikulas> would not crash otherwise or it would crash very rarely. It helps to Mikulas> detect specification violations. Mikulas> If the kernel developer (or tester) doesn't use this option, his buggy Mikulas> code won't crash - and if it won't crash, he won't fix the bug or report Mikulas> it. How is the user or developer supposed to learn about this option, if Mikulas> he gets no crash at all? So why do we make this a KConfig option at all? Just turn it on and let it rip. Now I also think that Linus has the right idea to not just sprinkle BUG_ONs into the code, just dump and oops and keep going if you can. If it's a filesystem or a device, turn it read only so that people notice right away.
