[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dmidecode] [PATCH v3] update dmidecode to parse Modern Management C

From: Jean Delvare
Subject: Re: [dmidecode] [PATCH v3] update dmidecode to parse Modern Management Controller blocks
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:36:01 +0200

Hi Neil,

On Tue,  7 Aug 2018 14:51:08 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> Starting with version 0x300 the SMBIOS specification defined in more
> detail the contents of the management controller type.  DMTF further
> reserved values to define the Redfish host interface specification.
> Update dmidecode to properly parse and present that information
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> ---
> Change Notes:
> V1->V2) Updated string formatting to print matching number of bytes
>       for unsigned shorts (address@hidden)
>       Adjusted string format for bDescriptor (address@hidden)
>       Prefaced PCI id's with 0x (address@hidden)
> V2->V3) Updated word and dword accesses to do appropriate endian
>       conversion
>       Updated Interface type and protocol type lists to reflect
>       overall SMBIOS spec rather than just RedFish host spec, and stay
>       more compatible with pre version 3 SMBIOS layouts
>       Adjusted IFC_PROTO_RECORD_BASE to be 6 rather than 7, as this is
>       in keeping with the spec, and is validated against the overall
>       type 42 record length in his dmidecode dump.  I'm convinced that
>       the layout of the system I'm testing on has an extra byte
>       inserted between the protocol record count and the start of the
>       protocol records.
> ---
>  dmidecode.c | 374 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 358 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> (...)

Not sure what to do with that. I made 60 comments when reviewing
version 2 of the patch [1], but it seems you have only addressed a few
of them in version 3. Are you going to process my comments and submit a
version 4? Or are you waiting for me to comment on version 3 first? I'm
afraid I would just have to repeat a lot of what I wrote about version
2, using a lot of my time for little gain. So I would prefer if you
process my previous comments first.


Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]