From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Oct 12 17:27:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00897 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from usr05.primenet.com (tlambert@usr05.primenet.com [206.165.6.205]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00891 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03047; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:27:10 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199710130027.RAA03047@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: fnord0: disabled, not probed. To: hcremean@vt.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:27:09 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19971012174035.46037@wakky.dyn.ml.org> from "Lee Cremeans" at Oct 12, 97 05:40:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > What will I do if I buy a used machine with FreeBSD installed on it... > > telepathically copy the notebook from the guy selling it? > > > > It seems we are reaching here to eliminate a perfectly reasonable > > warning message from the view of people too lazy to rebuild their > > kernel with fewer devices. > > > Okkay, time out. WHat's being proposed is the removal of the "disabled, not > probed" message, NOT the "device not found" messages. Read Jordan's post > again. Actually, the "disabled, not probed" messsages in the non-verbose case. I *did* read the message, and I still object to it. As long as they are there, they are an incentive to improve the general state of the code. If they aren't there, they are another kludge that will have to be undone if (or when) the code is corrected. There is a lot of code that falls into this category in the kernel; and a lot of code that is "dead" now that fixes have gone in, but has never been removed because someone kludged it to keep its mouth shut early on. If it has an open mount, we know it needs a fix; if it doesn't, we won't know to dike it out if the fix comes regardless of the code (generally, architectural fixes fix a lot of code, and only the "mouthy" code gets diked out as a result -- we have a "code completeness" problem here which making the "not probed" messsages silent will only complicate. 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.