Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-22 Thread Mattia Dongili
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:58:37AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2007 00:51, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:19, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > > > Blaisorblade wrote: > > > > Using > /dev/null 2>&1 is not suitable? > > > > > > Well yes, that might also

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Thursday 22 February 2007 00:51, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:19, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > > Blaisorblade wrote: > > > Using > /dev/null 2>&1 is not suitable? > > > > Well yes, that might also help. > > However, when you supply a daemon mode, I think it is also a goo

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:19, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Blaisorblade wrote: > > Using > /dev/null 2>&1 is not suitable? > > Well yes, that might also help. > However, when you supply a daemon mode, I think it is also a good idea to > add a silent feature, so that it is more easily and clea

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Jeroen van der Ham
Blaisorblade wrote: > Using > /dev/null 2>&1 is not suitable? Well yes, that might also help. However, when you supply a daemon mode, I think it is also a good idea to add a silent feature, so that it is more easily and cleanly scriptable. > Also happens to me, with a single daemon not connected

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 14:25, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:37, Jeff Dike wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > >>> Is it possible to add an option to uml_switch so that it is completely > >>> si

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Jeroen van der Ham
Blaisorblade wrote: > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:37, Jeff Dike wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: >>> Is it possible to add an option to uml_switch so that it is completely >>> silent? >> It would be a matter of putting all the printf's under the contr

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:37, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > > Is it possible to add an option to uml_switch so that it is completely > > silent? > > It would be a matter of putting all the printf's under the control of > such a switch

Re: [uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-20 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Is it possible to add an option to uml_switch so that it is completely > silent? It would be a matter of putting all the printf's under the control of such a switch - not a big deal. > I'm using UML as an educational tool to le

[uml-user] Silent uml_switch

2007-02-20 Thread Jeroen van der Ham
Hello, Is it possible to add an option to uml_switch so that it is completely silent? I'm using UML as an educational tool to let students explore computer networks. However, if we create a network that contains a loop then uml_switch will start spamming all kinds of messages. Even if the uml_swi