From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com [74.201.84.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3t9P4N1WPHzDvXp for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:15:15 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (76-250-84-236.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [76.250.84.236]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 14782689028621007.9618834532608; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:14:55 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: tomjose Cc: Li Nan , Adriana Kobylak , OpenBMC Maillist Subject: Re: IPMI LAN command story design - try 3rd send Message-ID: <20161104141455.GE17105@heinlein.lan> References: <57F37746.6040304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161004145104.d5co7h25dakpcxyz@asimov> <581C8C7D.8080702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mR8QP4gmHujQHb1c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <581C8C7D.8080702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 14:15:16 -0000 --mR8QP4gmHujQHb1c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom, On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 06:56:21PM +0530, tomjose wrote: > The Set Channel access command was decided to be used to mark the end of= =20 > a setting LAN configuration transaction. The IPMI spec for the SetLanConfig has a parameter 'Set In Progress' which states: 10b =3D commit write. Why are we not utilizing that? Maybe in addition to Set Channel Access? I don't see anything in the Set Channel Access command description that would be obvious as a mechanism for updating IP addresses. Was that just quick behavior we decided to do for Barreleye? Is there any reason why we would not deprecate that behavior in favor of the Set In Progress / commit write? --=20 Patrick Williams --mR8QP4gmHujQHb1c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYHJfSAAoJEKsDR8wtAMEZRaAQAIFleWPcAPVWf+yv5o77VLDa rnqSeWX6RfIR+/4d4Y+Wegmn3FYTVC62KDokyFd6KmtTvzoVWV91ocwr6za/HKcx 3Bwqme15b9veIAAELNEbaHLIWmKOIwNmmQHP9poTThN1Kj8sjhGGtA7NPioFa13s WfutP+xR9n8S+C2Ev5adsCS8cJZ2dyA1tc1Fw/vZYYffnvhSbOpDz2oHtKWe7SXr 3xgw6vPd5eeNHAoEFRa/puCsFvyfTZiqPLtP3KwH5EeEbFAuH3k50Sj+D3apcseC nGYJQIbtxuUlnl4952yygq370fJAcJwScuoIl6ml4WXNwWYSF6iL65ZHRA2VzS4C 9c+7i69CJcQaA3rWLoYMwuEH7fSytDbdgGEHqSP/55++puzJZtPDbQ1mx1i+/r3H KWCnOKoAFC2sqbBnmK4jxfdI61WIRX+hhs+r06b+fcAqi8+u8cczi3VlDTSWHJsj PwpRIqfhoQ7QLSvCBFui8CvnqDNZMUgDxT4TZDnRyIEXYkKy+G7tmziMli26jx6O sP6knxZ3E8VxWeLc0ZLQVZNre4xO5ahx6/BH01W00q0m49NAkZQzl94SrbNIWzk7 H9s2ZZMkvYfSn+Gp3OKTK5AKV8BW6k4/Qx0l5ZvcTNI8yiaodNeYxgDNtU1TFFzi s+rUAYx9kFKhgR4rpy1n =MoAV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mR8QP4gmHujQHb1c--