Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Verbose babble in if_fddisubr.c Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961031133738.17752B-100000@rodan.syr.edu> In-Reply-To: <6078.846772188@critter.tfs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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... I'd argue against this approach. The printf()s in the FDDI code print out one message per packet of an unknown protocol (IPX, Appletalk, etc). On my console, this is an average of something like 1-3 lines per second. I can't imagine an actual use for this other than debugging. This would be like printing out a line for every non-IP ethernet packet received: this isn't a "verbose" mode, this is a debug mode, much like SCSI_DEBUG or whatever the define is that prints out all the SCSI commands/transfers. Unless I'm missing the point of verbose, it seems that this would limit the utility of verbose by producing enough output to drown out everything else printed. -Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.95.961031133738.17752B-100000>