From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 31 06:06:52 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA06860
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 06:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA06855
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 06:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id BAA00660; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:02:49 +1100
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:02:49 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199610311402.BAA00660@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, j@ida.interface-business.de
Subject: Re: Verbose babble in if_fddisubr.c
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> How about adding a "sysctl" variable for that purpose ?
>> 
>> I'd be opposed to make "bootverbose" take over the meaning
>> "produce more run-time debug messages", since this might
>> affect its current use.

Er, `bootverbose' always had that meaning.  It's a (poorly named)
`verbose' flag that happens to be set at boot time.  The general
`verbose' flag has to be set at boot time so that it applies to
boot messages.

>I'm all for it.
>
>There are already precedences for this abuse, e.g. in the slice code
>(prining of the slice's start and end address in the bootverbose case
>-- even though opening a slice is not necessarily related to booting).

The author of `bootverbose' told me that it was a general flag when I
objected to using it for controlling the slice messages.

Bruce