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

[Albert Chu]

> I'm not sure if your classification style is different or just naming
> conventions.

For example, I classify event reading type 0x02 as discrete, and 0x03 as
 digital discrete.  I think this is different than yours.

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

I think anything along the lines of "generic-sensor" and
"sensor-specific-sensor" are fine.  I think the main point of confusion
was the variable/function naming corresponded to the "Sensor Classes"
written in section 36.1.  

Al

--
Albert Chu
address@hidden
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

----- Original Message -----
From: Anand Babu <address@hidden>
Date: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Sensors incorrect assumption about
discrete sensors

> ,----
> | > 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>
>