Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      30 Sep 1998 15:31:01 +0200
From:      dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= )
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Cc:        Kenneth Merry <ken@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_all.c scsi_all.h
Message-ID:  <xzppvcdhgmi.fsf@grjottunagard.ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: Peter Wemm's message of "Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:20:36 %2B0800"
References:  <199809301320.VAA12170@spinner.netplex.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> writes:
> Dag-Erling C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= wrote:
> > Could the bootverbose flag be made accessible through sysctl? This way
> > you could boot verbose to get detailed probe messages, and switch it
> > off later to avoid "unintersting" messages such as "tagged openings"
> > etc. I'm willing to do the deed if somebody more clueful than me okays
> > it and reviews the patch...
> Perhaps it should be a second variable, eg: scsi_verbose..  and a 
> corresponding sysctl  hw.scsi_verbose (or hw.scsi.verbose if there is 
> potential for more hw.scsi.* variables).

No, I used the "tagged openings" stuff just as an example. I don't
think it's a good idea to separate scsiverbose from bootverbose. Let's
just call it kern.verbose...

> At the moment this would pretty much have the same effect, but the prospect
> of twiddling bootverbose itself on the fly at runtime sends a chill down my
> spine.. 

Why? The only thing it affects is a printf or two AFAIK.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - dag-erli@ifi.uio.no



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzppvcdhgmi.fsf>