From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 31 09:27:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA22379 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tahoma.cwu.edu (skynyrd@tahoma.cwu.edu [198.104.65.220]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22369 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by tahoma.cwu.edu; id AA03249; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:27:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:27:43 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Timmons To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Verbose babble in if_fddisubr.c In-Reply-To: <6078.846772188@critter.tfs.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I am wondering if it is worth the effort for these particular messages. They could be useful if something in the driver itself was misunderstanding encapsulation and was presenting bunged packets of a supported protocol to fddi_input(). Otherwise it should be no surprise that lots of protocol types aren't supported and the thing to do (like if_ether()) is to just ++noproto and return. In the case of the hard-core driver development situation, the developer is probably going to have a more sophisticated debugging environment set up than these printfs. The rest of us can use BPF to see all of the odd and interesting things going by. And if someone does go ahead with a sysctl variable, are we going to do the same thing in all of the other interface family input routines, like if_ether()? So with my great cannon of knowledge on the subject (10 minutes spent with TCP/IP illustrated volume II and a couple of peeks at the source :) I vote for just lopping the statements out altogether unless there is a terribly compelling reason for leaving them in. -Chris On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >The author of `bootverbose' told me that it was a general flag when I > >objected to using it for controlling the slice messages. > > Is that's me you're referring to ? :-) > > The idea was for it to be a flag that you could set so early that you > could catch boot-related stuff (to which I consider the slice but > not the FDDI messages). As soon as you have single user running > you can tweak a sysctl variable, and things that can use that, > should use that instead. > > So: FDDI should have a sysctl: > > net.fddi.verbose > > or similar, possibly two different ones... > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. > http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. > whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. > Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so. >