Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on Jan 19, Arnaud Quette would write:
Perhaps it should leave status unchanged after a single corrupt
record from the UPS instead of reporting a problem.
if only the checksum is corrupted from time to time, and not the data,
it may be worth to indeed not declare directly staleness.
We don't know whether the checksum or the data is corrupted. That is
the point of a checksum. However, if the data is unchanged except
for the checksum, then I think we can safely ignore the checksum.
But my idea was to just skip up to N corrupt status records (where
N should likely be 1) without reporting stale.
I've just committed a patch to trunk (r3400) to get more visibility on
the received data, and impact on ignoring checksum.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <[email protected]>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
