[Nut-upsdev] about nut revision 1289

Carlos Rodrigues cefrodrigues at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 15:57:14 UTC 2009


I don't remember why I added those lines, and at first sight they
don't make any sense because the read waits up to 2 seconds or a
carriage return (whichever comes first), so it would wait those 300ms
anyway. Which is why I think they were added for a reason... Now if
that reason made sense or not, that's another story... :)

But in the remote case those lines really do something, removing them
will at most cause some glitches in some single model that only one
person has. So I guess if they are causing problems with megatec_usb
(and USB models are much more popular nowadays), it is better to just
remove them.

   Carlos Rodrigues

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexander Gordeev<lasaine at lvk.cs.msu.su> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> How do you do? :)
> Can you please clarify the change introduced by the subj
> (http://boxster.ghz.cc/projects/nut/changeset/1289)? I need to know in
> particular why did you add these intervals between sending a command
> and reading the response. They are the root of weird problems with
> megatec_usb. Can I safely remove READ_PACE and usleep-s?
> I tried to search the archives and found the related thread:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2008-February/003724.html
> Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question.
> --
>  Alexander

More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list