On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:30 -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> 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?
Looks good to me. Thanks.
Al
> thanks again,
--
Albert Chu
chu11@xxxxxxxx
925-422-5311
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
