Hey AB,

> Protocol parallelism should be achievable thru UDM too. 

> UDM APIs will support non-blocking calls too. During UDM open call,
> you pass this option.

I suppose we can talk about these at the meeting later this month.  If
these are in your plans, I'd like to hear about them and how you plan to
implement them.  I have my own ideas concerning them and how to best
implement them.  

Al

--
Albert Chu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

----- Original Message -----
From: Anand Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, November 3, 2005 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] ipmi_lan_open_session() question

> ,----[ Albert Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> | AB, I'm not doubting that it has a number of enhancements.  However,
> | with all APIs, as you abstract away details you remove 
> flexibility from
> | the programmer.  For example, the strength of ipmipower is its 
> protocol| parallelism.  Its protocol parallelism comes from its 
> "manual"| management of the ipmi protocol across all nodes.  How 
> can I still
> | achieve the performance of the old ipmipower if ipmipower is 
> forced to
> | move to the UDM?
> `----
> Only those who wants to develop tools that needs to work both inband
> and outband seamlessly has to use UDM. Otherwise you are free to
> access any APIs at any layer. Only the redundant obsolete APIs are
> removed. UDM is not completely ready yet to accommodate all
> needs. Protocol parallelism should be achievable thru UDM
> too. Performance difference will not even be noticeable. I am planning
> to inline the calls.  
> 
> ,----[ Albert Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> | Another example.  You assume in the UDM that users are willing to 
> block| on a recvfrom() waiting for a reply from an IPMI cmd 
> request.  What if a
> | user doesn't want this??
> `----
> UDM APIs will support non-blocking calls too. During UDM open call,
> you pass this option.
> 
> ,----[ Albert Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> | I think if you can let us know what API functions may or may not
> | disappear, that would help things alot.  I just don't believe its
> | correct to just assume that the UDM will be better than what 
> currently| exists.
> `----
> If you notice, certain new functions will be prefixed with 2. Only
> those calls will be replaced. I will rename the old calls with new
> name or using a macro like FREEIPMI_FORCE_0_1_3_API.
> 
> -- 
> Anand Babu 
> GPG Key ID: 0x62E15A31
> Blog [http://ab.freeshell.org]              
> The GNU Operating System [http://www.gnu.org]  
> 



_______________________________________________
Freeipmi-devel mailing list
Freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel

Reply via email to