Once upon a time, Charles Lepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Feb 7, 2008 10:13 AM, Arjen de Korte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 193- ser_get_line_alert(upsfd, buf, sizeof(buf), '\012', > > >> "", > > >> 194- POLL_ALERT, alert_handler, 0, 20000); > > >> 193+ > > >> 194+ ser_flush_io(upsfd); > > >> 195 > > >> 196 ser_send(upsfd, cmd); > > > > > > I tried this, but it didn't catch the extra data. I still needed the > > > ser_get_line() calls. > > > > That's probably because in you ser_get_line() function, you specify quite > > a long delay (3 seconds), while the ser_flush_io() commmand will not wait > > for data. So the reply you're trying to get rid of may not have arrived > > completely at the time of flushing the buffers. So we may need both. > > Reading the reply through ser_get_line() and ser_flush_io() to get rid of > > unexpected messages. > > What was the final decision regarding the placement and order of the > ser_get_line/ser_flush_io calls?
I need the ser_get_line() calls in my patch either way. While the ser_get_line_alert() call above isn't really doing anything (the alert handler just throws away the input) does have a wait that is longer than the ser_flush_io() call, so I don't know if that will function the same. I have not yet had a chance to try it on my old UPS (since I have to copy updates to my notebook and carry it to the power room). -- Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
