Nut upsdev - Jun 2009 - about nut revision 1289

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

Hi!

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.

Regards,
   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
>

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:57:14 +0100
Carlos Rodrigues <cefrodrigues at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 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.
Thanks!
So I'll remove them and we'll see if anyone complains. :)
> 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
> >

-- 
  Alexander