From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
References: <918827792a854c7ff851bc9b3cc115a3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
From: Gorka Guardiola <paurea@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <918827792a854c7ff851bc9b3cc115a3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
Message-Id: <1D432047-DD58-4730-9386-F242419B88A0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:45:37 +0100
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [9fans] more serial questions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cfab17e6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I didn't add that, your guess is as good as mine.

G.

> On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:12 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:=

>=20
> i'm just asking questions, because i don't have the experience the author
> clearly has.
>=20
> i'm looking at this comment
>=20
>        /*
>         * if we encounter a long run of continuous read
>         * errors, do something drastic so that our caller
>         * doesn't just spin its wheels forever.
>         */
>=20
> long run is defined to be 10000 for the lifetime of all serial ports.  i'm=
 thinking
> of making this 5 in a row per call, and checking for a few more cant conti=
nue
> type messages.  was there a particular device that might spit out hundreds=
 of
> consecutive read timeouts (that's the only error this works for) before re=
turning
> something?  could the same thing happen on write?
>=20
> - erik
>=20