[Nut-upsdev] bestfortress driver establishes/loses/establishes communication and so on...

[Stuart D. Gathman]

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 <stuart at bmsi.com>
     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.