Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [PATCH] Fix IPMI Completion Codes

From: "Anders Broman" <a.broman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:52:24 +0200

Committed revision 22191.
Thanks
Anders

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] För Flavio Leitner
Skickat: den 20 juni 2007 20:30
Till: Al Chu
Kopia: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kent Baxley
Ämne: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [PATCH] Fix IPMI Completion Codes

On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:57:42AM -0700, Al Chu wrote:
> +static const ipmi_complcmd_dissect ipmi_complcmd_array[] = {
> 
> You seem to cover a lot more completion codes than anyone would have
> expected.  That's great!  Thanks.

I deleted the ones which doesn't have a specific completion code and
the missing (I couldn't find them) are commented for future assign.  

> +       { 0x00, 0x08,   0x80,   "Parameter not supported" },
> +       { 0x00, 0x08,   0x81,   "Attempt to set in progress value" },
> +       { 0x00, 0x08,   0x82,   "Attempt to write read-only value" },
> +       { 0x00, 0x09,   0x80,   "Parameter not supported" },
> <snip>
> +       guint8 netfnr = netfn & 0xFE;
> 
> It seems you are masking out the least significant bit of the network
> function because that bit accounts for request vs. response network
> functions??  Then using that subsequent value for comparisons against
> the 'ipmi_complcmd_dissect' table?
> 
> I believe that completion codes are only going to be sent with response
> messages, so I don't believe there is any need to do this.  Perhaps you
> could just use response network functions in the 'ipmi_complcmd_dissect'
> table and forget about masking out the least significant bit?

Right, what about the attached one?

thanks again,
-- 
Flávio