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

[Neil Horman]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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.
> 

Sorry, I was updating based on this email:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/dmidecode-devel/2018-08/msg00019.html

I had missed this additional comments here:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/dmidecode-devel/2018-08/msg00015.html

But I need to update to v4 anyway to address the version span with the
unspecified variable length field

Neil

> [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/dmidecode-devel/2018-08/msg00015.html
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
>