Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Sensors incorrect assumption about discrete sensors

[Anand Babu]

,----
| > Why do you want to write your own sensors_classify function?, 
| 
| I simply divide up my code into functions differently than fish.  You
| divide up your fish code into:
| 
| "threshold"
| "generic discrete"
| "sensor specific discrete"
| 
| functions.  I divided up my functions into:
| 
| "threshold"
| "digital discrete sensors"
| "non-digital discrete discrete sensors"
| 
| That's all.
`----
I'm not sure if your classification style is different or just naming
conventions.

Naming conventions:
I prefer to switch from  "discrete" and "digital discrete" names to
Table 36.1 based "generic-discrete" and "sensor specific discrete".

Classification style:
Bala has few questions. He will reply to this thread.

,----
| > If we have to fix it, we can extend to one more classify function 
| > inside libfreeipmi itself.
| 
| How about after Alpha5-Qa1, we do this.  I think first, we maybe need to
| re-word some of the macros names and function names.  That's why I
| thought ipmi_sensor_classify() as well as the fish functions had those bugs.
`----

Change has already been committed. Propose a list of name
changes. Lets discuss after Alpha5-QA1 release.

Happy Hacking,
--ab


----- Original Message -----
From: Anand Babu <address@hidden>
Date: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Sensors incorrect assumption about
discrete sensors

> I think both monitoring agent and fish should use common code base as
> much as possible.
> 
> Why do you want to write your own sensors_classify function?, If we
> have to fix it, we can extend to one more classify function inside
> libfreeipmi itself.
> 
> -ab
> ,----[ Albert Chu <address@hidden> ]
> | ahh, I understand what you were trying to do now.  I'll change the
> | function back to the way it was.  I'll re-write my host monitoring
> | code to use my own "sensor_classify" function.
> | 
> | Al
> | 
> | -- Albert Chu address@hidden Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> `----
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anand Babu <address@hidden>
> Date: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Sensors incorrect assumption about
> discrete sensors
> 
> > 
> > Original code was correct.
> > 
> > "Generic - discrete sensor" and "Sensor Specific - discrete sensors"
> > are different.
> > 
> > Original code classified event-reading based on 36.1.
> > 
> > When event/reading type code is between 0x01 to 0x0C, you have to 
> > sub switch-case using table 36.2.
> > 
> > It was confusing because of the MACRO names.
> > We should rename them as
> > IPMI_SENSOR_CLASS_DIGITAL_DISCRETE =>
> >    IPMI_SENSOR_CLASS_GENERIC_DISCRETE
> > IPMI_SENSOR_CLASS_DISCRETE =>
> >    IPMI_SENSOR_CLASS_SENSOR_SPECIFIC_DISCRETE.
> > 
> > Happy Hacking,
> > -ab
> > 
> > ,----[ Albert Chu <address@hidden> ]
> > | It seems my "fix" of ipmi_sensor_classify was only half a fix.  
> > Fish's| sensors code incorrectly assumes that a "discrete sensor" 
> > has an
> > | event/reading type code of 0x6Fh.  Thus, it always interprets 
> states> | based on the the sensor specific data (table 36-3 of the 
> IPMI spec).
> > | Instead it should check the event/reading type code first, to make
> > | sure it is 0x6Fh.  If it isn't 0x6F, then it should be using the
> > | generic sensor data (table 36-2).
> > | 
> > | I think this only affects 1 sensor, Power Unit Redund, on 
> Tiger4. 
> > So
> > | I'm not too hung up delaying Alpha5-Qa1 for this bug.  But I 
> > think its
> > | something that should be fixed soon.
> > | 
> > | Al
> > `----
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Albert Chu <address@hidden>
> > Date: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:53 pm
> > Subject: [Freeipmi-devel] Couple of major changes ...
> > 
> > > Made a few changes that are pretty significant that I thought I 
> > should> mention.
> > > 
> > > unassemble_ipmi_kcs_pkt:  similar to ipmi_lan_pkt, there is no 
> > > guaranteethat the packet returned from ipmi_kcs_read will be 
> > > atleast the size
> > > of tmpl_hdr_kcs + tmpl_cmd.  In particular, if comp_code != 
> > > success, the
> > > package may be much smaller.  So we cannot just error out if 
> the 
> > > packetis smaller than we expect.
> > > 
> > > tmpl_get_sensor_threshold_reading_rs: Removed the "reserved3" 
> > > field. 
> > > This field is optionally returned from the BMC.  On tiger4, it 
> is 
> > not> returned at all.  On those machines that it is returned,
> > > unassemble_ipmi_kcs_pkt will ensure it isn't copied at all to the
> > > obj_cmd buffer.
> > > 
> > > ipmi_sensor_classify: This function returned incorrect classes 
> on 
> > some> event type codes, leading to some incorrect output in 
> > sensors.  As far
> > > as I can tell, this did not break anything, although there was 
> a 
> > > chanceit could have.
> > > 
> > > Al
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > _.|_ 
> > (_||_)
> > Free as in Freedom <www.gnu.org>
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> _.|_ 
> (_||_)
> Free as in Freedom <www.gnu.org>
> 



-- 
 _.|_ 
(_||_)
Free as in Freedom <www.gnu.org>