Re: [Ipmitool-devel] [patches:#89] [BMR #81324] HPM.2 long message support

[Dmitry B. <di...@pi...>]

Zdenek,

Here is the updated patch.

Regards,
Dmitry

31.03.2014 13:37, Dmitry Bazhenov пишет:
> Zdenek,
>
> Okay then. I'll provide the updated patch later today.
>
> Regards,
> Dmitry
>
> 31.03.2014 13:34, Zdenek Styblik пишет:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Dmitry Bazhenov 
>> <di...@pi...> wrote:
>>> Hello, Zdenek,
>>>
>>> I think there should be no such checks inside these callbacks.
>>> However, I guess there should be a check inside thr
>>> ipmi_intf_set_max_request/response_data_size
>>> functions which guarantee that the minimum value will be not less 
>>> than 25
>>> bytes (required by IPMI spec).
>>>
>>> Could you please add such check or is it better for me to provide a new
>>> patch revision?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dmitry
>>>
>> Dmitry,
>>
>> I don't have access to any IPMI capable hardware, so I'm afraid it's
>> either up to you or somebody else. I'm sorry.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Z.
>>
>>> 31.03.2014 13:07, Zdenek Styblik пишет:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Zdenek Styblik
>>>> <zde...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Dmitry Bazhenov 
>>>>> <di...@pi...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I got a bit "scared" by solution applied to
>>>>>>> ipmi_intf_get_max_request_data_size() and
>>>>>>> ipmi_intf_get_max_response_data_size(). But then I've tried to 
>>>>>>> compile
>>>>>>> just this one function with all kinds of switches and compiler 
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> comply, so I guess it's ok.
>>>>>>> I wonder, shouldn't be the same logic applied to
>>>>>>> ipmi_lanp_set_max_rq_data_size() and 
>>>>>>> ipmi_lanp_set_max_rp_data_size()
>>>>>>> as well?
>>>>>> [DB] Calculations in the ipmi_intf_get_max_request_data_size() are
>>>>>> required
>>>>>> for the case if the target IPMC device is accessed via IPMI 
>>>>>> bridging.
>>>>>> Since
>>>>>> we can not deduce the target channel maximum message size, we use 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> minimum required size. These calculations are not needed for 
>>>>>> direct IPMC
>>>>>> device access.
>>>>>> [DB] Set max size functions are required if maximum message size 
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> chosen interface must be somehow modified from the value received 
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> interface properties. This is the case for the encrypted RMCP+ 
>>>>>> payload
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> maximum message size must be reduced by the confidentiality
>>>>>> header/trailer
>>>>>> sizes. Other interface types do not even implement these callbacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What I meant is whether under/over-flow shouldn't be checked in those
>>>>> functions as well.
>>>>>
>>>> Ping?
>>>>
>>>> Z.
>>>
>