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

[balamurugan]

Hi Al
   In table 36-2, status for a Event/Reading Type Code has multiple status. 
When we do sensor reading, BMC returns only single status for a sensor,
whose Event/Reading Type Code is Generic Discrete.

   I think, better way to classify sensor is, by Table 36-1.   Otherwise, we
need to put decision making in discrete sensors to handle sensors, whose
Event/Reading Type Code is in Table 36-2.

Thanks
Bala


> > 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Al
> 
> --
> Albert Chu
> address@hidden
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> 
> ----- 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>
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipmi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
> 

-- 
+++ NEU bei GMX und erstmalig in Deutschland: TÜV-geprüfter Virenschutz +++
100% Virenerkennung nach Wildlist. Infos: http://www.gmx.net/virenschutz