From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 24 18:01:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54BA3313; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0389C2761; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s5OI1T3L087101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:01:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id s5OI1TdO087098; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:01:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:01:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: sbruno@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wireless mcast updates, ic->ic_update_mcast In-Reply-To: <1403623187.7781.6.camel@bruno> Message-ID: References: <1403366123.39384.10.camel@bruno> <1403623187.7781.6.camel@bruno> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:01:29 -0600 (MDT) Cc: "freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:01:31 -0000 On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Sean Bruno wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 12:47 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> Well, it depends on what the hardware may want or desire to function >> correctly. I've no idea what theose chips require for multicast >> behaviour. > > I think that was kind of my point of bringing this up. Only a handful > of cards really implement the appropriate code. Most of the rest, > implement stub functions that hide a console print message indicating > missing functionality. > > I propose nuking most of these stub functions and wrapping the console > printf in a bootverbose. FWIW, I agree. That little error-that's-not-an-error is what new users see, and it obviously must be the problem. So not only is it not helping, it often distracts from real problems.