From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 4 16:31:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04883 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:31:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sendero.simon-shapiro.org (sendero-fxp0.Simon-Shapiro.ORG [206.190.148.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04742 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:30:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shimon@sendero-fxp0.simon-shapiro.org) Received: (qmail 14964 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Mar 1998 00:37:15 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3-alpha-021598 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199803050013.QAA22992@dingo.cdrom.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 16:37:15 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Organization: The Simon Shapiro Foundation From: Simon Shapiro To: Mike Smith Subject: Re: silo overflows (Was Re: 3.0-RELEASE?) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Thyer Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 05-Mar-98 Mike Smith wrote: >> There was a time when it didn't happen at all...hmmm was that 2.1R ? >> or maybe 2.2-CURRENT sometime after that. > > Yeah, before the message was actually printed. Let's take all those > annoying warning messages out of the kernel, so that you can't tell > what is going wrong. It works for Microsoft, after all. If the ``problem'' is harmless. then do not print it. Make the printing optional? ... > You could try reading the manpage, just for starters. Do you think I did not? I did and I do not agree with what it says. >> > I though that UARTs and RS-232C were well understood. > > Na und? They're sufficiently well understood for unrecoverable > error conditions to be detected and reported. What more do you want? Perfection :-) The world, as a whole knows how to never overflow a UART for quite some time. There are transmission errors, of course. These either get thrown out, or passed up to the error resilient layer. Thisis particularly valid view in the case of TCP/IP over PPP, which has at least two places in which to handle the error. I do not see an Ethernet card report error per collision. This is easy for me to say and agravating for you to read, as I am being jugmental over something I had zero contribution for and almost as much investigation. The context of the comment was work on the sio.c driver. If it is your opinion that the driver is optimal, and these errors are unavoidable, I'll accept this opinion and assume that my impression, as expressed above, is erroneous. Really. ---------- Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Shimon@Simon-Shapiro.ORG Voice: 503.799.2313 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message