I think the chief complaint is that the second case has an additional field
inserted in the output (true).
The output should contain the same number of fields in both cases, so either:
a) The ‘true’ should be part of one of the other fields in the second
case, or
b) There should be a ‘false’ added in the first case.
Andy
From: Liebig, Holger [mailto:holger.lie...@ts.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:42 AM
To: Detweiler, Dick; ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [Ipmitool-devel] Easy question re: output formats and
another about exec. - Email found in subject
Dick,
the alert string key from the second system has bit7 set (0x80), which
indicates that this policy is event specific (0x80). See
ipmi_pef_list_policies() in ipmi_pef.c. In my (old) copy of the sources this is
in line 687.
Hope this helps,
Holger
________________________________
From: Detweiler, Dick [mailto:dick.detwei...@avocent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:43 PM
To: ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Ipmitool-devel] Easy question re: output formats and another
about exec.
Hi all,
I am using ipmitool’s lanplus interface to query pef policy’s from
multiple SP’s so I can aggregate the info. The problem is the information
returned is not consistent between SP types. In the case I am dealing with
now, if the policy is not event-specific, the output contains one less field
than other SP’s whose policies are event-specific. Here is the output:
# ipmitool -I lanplus -L ADMINISTRATOR+ -H 192.168.96.70 pef policy
1 | 1 | Match-always | 1 | 802.3 LAN | PET | public | 0 | 0 | 0.0.0.0
| 00:00:00:00:00:00
# ipmitool -I lanplus -L ADMINISTRATOR+ -H 192.168.96.51 pef policy
1 | 1 | Match-always | true | 1 | 802.3 LAN | PET | public | 10 | 1 |
10.20.30.40 | 00:00:00:00:00:00
Obviously, there must be different output depending on the data coming
back – so I went looking through the source to see how the results of this
command are formatted and output to the user without any luck. I looked for
printf’s and tried to follow from ipmi_pef.c or mai_pef.c back toward
ipmitool.c without success. The online documentation I googled hardly
scratches the surface of the implementation – at least what I found.
Is this because the text string is formatted by the SP and sent over
the network to the requestor? Or am I just too blind to see it? If it’s
coming back from the SP’s is there some standard (funny, I know) for what this
output is supposed to look like or contain?
Also while I am here. Am I guaranteed all the commands in the file
passed to ipmitool via the exec command will be executed in one session?
Thanks for any help,
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
Ipmitool-devel mailing list
Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
