Ensuring code coverage in unit testing?
Do you have a mandate from management to be dogmatic about obtaining 100% code coverage with your test cases? If not, do you believe touching every line of code is the most effective way to find bugs in your code? Assuming you don't have infinite time and people resources, you should probably focus on reasonably testing all of your non trivial code with emphasis on the parts that the developers know were tricky to write or error prone.
Although code coverage is great because you surely can't say a piece of code is tested until it has been touched, I just don't equate touching a piece of code to calling it tested. I'm not against code coverage, but it's too easy to fall into using code coverage as the metric to know when testing is complete. I think that would be a mistake.