From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d; helo=mail-pj1-x102d.google.com; envelope-from=manikandan.hcl.ers.epl@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=moZSrrj9; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BCP9v4q8bzDrLw for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:31:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id t15so3704623pjq.5 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:31:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SoMKFcpv4t74SB8Z2NkuRMjIe/0+h4b+mMWIWDAYaYU=; b=moZSrrj97a74Nc/pOoLkHdIxGkJMIBvaN4MCZyP/qddEjK4L2MWvoKPQD8uCVx831j RfOtfgl9sqQfB502umQD1KhsSi5+67PIlFajeGRs+7yykXCT3AYW/c+fT6AxEZzPC16C Z27Z5J0x1rBRsl/S4ZSjxIRKngZ4160Y0FM//W1yeUi7SPx0fMNZQaTo8xBcBkw14er8 j/eaqBnJdcbL65F0reIGMuUrckyoR36S9lA105nq3W54Vog9AryITBr5PGTccNC3mZ8v Um1eBO/0UO34ysI/NfHuxM5ksgsySjEQJt7PQTFfiLnkZexUYT3ZDLJg0fC7TAVkmP8A P/aA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SoMKFcpv4t74SB8Z2NkuRMjIe/0+h4b+mMWIWDAYaYU=; b=p5qmga2pkILJLyuiedmkQgBfdHJnWPLiIF+ZXP4V0Gwh5SmAY/dxTywlLjBESYM4QU a/y8ieHTHEwLSX978ep1D+8W5bSRT8YneymsHqTbgsk442qtzsNAU7nzCd2jQEgBVlkL L3of96LTh8EukJG/6n/uSmJnwYkndYPOKWISq01ntZ1kcOtYydXW8hvqChtJmGrLd4fs ZRkhUfeZ148Si2xHMLUVxgZYzTaXte9zxdoP4cIXBIen2P9PYDgqvIHkdPcHPyyIYVIc 8/5728XG9XFubKOjl7LdKp9IdXBCDYQ3AiBR2V4ih1rSRQ0qX3RFGuF8uuLNBpSq+/ml k+XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hPRAxlse6jJpG+zjacNyKoP3PU0zQdvjfadvZ9u7LRRDkQetM w/NurOCX/6x530GOlLpYw+Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2go2YkHBTuwtwoT4+X5KaYpS1F7Cy0YMI05T0ZKqVeW1Bp76GWNy4/si/a730W4IRFAtgVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e903:: with SMTP id k3mr5317399pld.148.1595536271659; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnn ([112.133.236.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p29sm3684201pgl.36.2020.07.23.13.31.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:01:04 +0530 From: Manikandan To: Vijay Khemka Cc: "Ren, Zhikui" , "openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org" , "Wang, Kuiying" , "velumanit@hcl.com" , "manikandan.e@hcl.com" Subject: Re: add multi-host support in the phosphor-post-code-manager Message-ID: <20200723203104.GA4976@cnn> References: <20200720160013.GB17117@cnn> <2EFB6403-DA2F-434F-87CE-B9EA917A2BE4@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2EFB6403-DA2F-434F-87CE-B9EA917A2BE4@fb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:31:16 -0000 On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 06:28:44PM +0000, Vijay Khemka wrote: > I would also prefer single process design but as Patrick mentioned about hot pluggable > Host, either we can predefine maximum allowed host per platform or go for multi > process approach for complete dynamic pluggable host. > > We really need to assess what is the disadvantage in predefining maximum number of hosts > With single process because there will be limited slots available per platform. Thanks Vijay for comment. The Multi-host on obmc-console and x86-power-control design and implemetation based on multi-process as i checked source code. As already obmc-console and x86-power-control agreed on multi-process , Is there specific reason we need to go for the single process design to support on multi-host postcode. I understand that x86-power-control initially planned to have single process for multi-host and then later changed to the multi-process.