-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


  Okay, this is ridiculous.
  I'm running:

NetBSD 1.3_BETA (SSW) #5: Fri Dec 19 19:20:18 EST 1997
    mcr@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca:/j/netbsd/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/SSW

  As far as I know, I'm running the latest code: I see no differences
between my sup tree and my build tree, and I grabbed new code from
ftp.netbsd.org just in case. I have:

com.c:
     $NetBSD: com.c,v 1.112 1997/10/03 06:11:35 mikel Exp $

com_isa.c:
     $NetBSD: com_isa.c,v 1.10 1997/10/20 18:43:08 thorpej Exp $

com_multi.c:
     $NetBSD: com_multi.c,v 1.8 1997/10/16 00:29:34 thorpej Exp $

com_multi.h:
     $NetBSD: com_multi.h,v 1.1 1997/04/04 20:56:38 mycroft Exp $

comreg.h:
     $NetBSD: comreg.h,v 1.9 1996/09/06 05:06:01 mycroft Exp $
 

  My system, a 133Mhz K5, with:

com0 at isa0 port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4: ns16550a, working fifo
com1 at isa0 port 0x2f8-0x2ff irq 3: ns16550a, working fifo
ast0 at isa0 port 0x1a0-0x1bf irq 5
com3 at ast0 slave 0: ns16550a, working fifo
com4 at ast0 slave 1: ns16550a, working fifo
com5 at ast0 slave 2: ns16550a, working fifo
com6 at ast0 slave 3: ns16550a, working fifo

  most of which are used as consoles for headless machines (this isn't a
6x112k PPP box) now can't do 9600 baud. I dropped to 2400 just now, and it
still gave me: 

com3: 8 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 19 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 5 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 14 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 35 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 32 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 75 silo overflows, 0 ibuf floods
com3: 1 silo overflow, 0 ibuf floods

  I had to drop to *300* baud to get it slow enough to not lose characters
all over the place. RTS/CTS isn't always available in the prom's of headless
machines, so I'm happy to stick to 9600 baud rather than try for 38400
or something. I *won't* cope with 300 baud.
  My previous kernel, from the 1.3_alpha days:

istari-[~] mcr 1 >what /netbsd.ssw1
/netbsd.ssw1
        NetBSD 1.3_ALPHA (SSW) #4: Thu Oct 30 15:41:46 EST 1997

  did *not* have this problem. 

  Perhaps this coorelates with UUCP problems that some people are having?

  On another note, I received a ST16650 manual last week. Dave Huang's
existing code probed false positive very often. I hope to fix that up as soon
as 1.3 is released.

   :!mcr!:            |  Network and security consulting/contract programming
   Michael Richardson |   I do IPsec policy code for SSH <http://www.ssh.fi/>
 Personal: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca. PGP key available.
 Corporate: sales@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca. 
	ON HUMILITY: To err is human, to moo bovine.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBNJ3g1qZpLyXYhL+BAQFbKwMArlFbPAC2g+YDv2Q24jS7NycpqpXt7y99
J2v/vAD4q8TyRrrgv7coxnIMu0Qoa4gHI3VBscqk8dc5VkIp33rtzgDvC5lI46kX
I8cioAeLuzvDKmaQnGY09ev9EaopdjvJ
=vrBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----