On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 10:06 -0600, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 08:42 -0700, Al Chu wrote: > > Hey Levi, > > > > Thanks for noticing this. I'm guessing that the implementation changed > > awhile back and I forgot to change the comments. > > > > I need to look at the code again the refresh my memory on how best to > > implement this. Looking at ipmiconsole (the tool, not the lib) it seems > > neither ipmiconsole_ctx_destroy() or ipmiconsole_engine_teardown() > > block. I actually spin waiting for ipmiconsole_ctx_destroy() to return > > a non-zero value back to me. > > > > I'll modify the comments for now, and add blocking equivalents into my > > TODO. > > > > Is this something that's needed soon on your end? > > > > Well, I've got libipmiconsole hooked into the current release of conman > now, and I'm working on clean up and debugging issues now. It's worked > great in my small-scale testing so far, so we'd like to push the > FreeIPMI tools out into our system image that's being released next > month.
That's awesome! How many engine threads do you have running? How many nodes? > Chris sounded like he wanted to do some refactoring of conman before he > tackled integrating libipmiconsole, but we wanted to see it happen ASAP. > I'll submit a patch once I'm finished cleaning up, and then Chris can > use it or not. I won't be offended if it doesn't fit his vision of where > conman is going, but it ought to at least be a relatively clean solution > to fitting libipmiconsole into the current conman structure that will be > useful until he's finished with his refactoring. > Anyway, part of the cleanup is getting the libipmiconsole stuff cleanly > torn down when conman closes down via a signal, and the way it's set up > now, all of the connection objects get destroyed sequentially via a > list_destroy, and it might be painful to sequentially spin-wait. > Though, now that I think about it, calling ipmiconsole_engine_teardown() > before the list_destroy() should ensure that all of them start > disconnecting at once, so it shouldn't be that bad. That seem's like a good plan. Running engine_teardown() then a list_destroy() on all the contexts. But, as you state the previous e- mail, if that's not working, there must be a bug. I'll take a look. Al > > I'll see how that works out, so maybe it won't be a time-critical > enhancement at all. > > --Levi -- Albert Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 925-422-5311 Computer Scientist High Performance Systems Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory _______________________________________________ Freeipmi-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
