On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 09:53 -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > oopses (appended below). Does this patch require one or more of the
> > other patches in the 39.1 set to be happy (for instance, the
> > allow-hot-smi-remove patch), or am I running into some other issue?
> >
> I looked at this yester
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> I wanted to let you know about some of the testing I've done with some
> of the new 39.1 patches and also to ask you about an issue I found.
>
> First, I wanted to ask you about the ipmi-remove-device-interface-limits
> patch. It seems that when I have this patc
Hi Corey,
I wanted to let you know about some of the testing I've done with some
of the new 39.1 patches and also to ask you about an issue I found.
First, I wanted to ask you about the ipmi-remove-device-interface-limits
patch. It seems that when I have this patch loaded (along with just the
3
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 14:34 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >
> Hmm, that might be harder on 2.4. I have to review the set of patches
> to see what will go on for the 2.4 release, so I'll look at it then.
> It seems to me that 2.4 and the multi-node beasts wouldn't be a good
> match, but if i
Carol Hebert wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 21:46 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>
>> .
>>
>> I'm waiting for one more patch to be finished up and tested, and I'm
>> putting out a 2.6.18 patch set.
>>
>>
>
> That's excellent news! I'll run the patch set on my multi-nodes as soon
> as it's out
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 21:46 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> .
>
> I'm waiting for one more patch to be finished up and tested, and I'm
> putting out a 2.6.18 patch set.
>
That's excellent news! I'll run the patch set on my multi-nodes as soon
as it's out. BTW: I was wondering if it would be muc
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wow! I barely hit return on my email and the patch was in my
> inbox!! :-)
>
Well, I had it sitting there, so it was easy. Sorry about the compile
errors, those fixes had snuck into a later patch but didn't get put into
the right place.
I'm waiting for one more p
Hi,
Wow! I barely hit return on my email and the patch was in my
inbox!! :-)
I made a couple of adjustments to the patch to make my compiler happy.
In the ipmi_smi_watcher_register() routine, I deleted the "&" on
to_deliver; also, I added GFP_KERNEL as a second arg to kmalloc:
int ipmi_smi_watc
Ok, patch is attached.
Carol Hebert wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:37 -0700, Carol Hebert wrote:
>
>> Hi Corey,
>>
>> This latest patch worked great on my 2-node system! :-D I'll try to
>> get some time on a 4-node and 8-node system asap to test it out on them
>> as well.
>>
>
> Oops
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:37 -0700, Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> This latest patch worked great on my 2-node system! :-D I'll try to
> get some time on a 4-node and 8-node system asap to test it out on them
> as well.
Oops, I guess I'll probably need that patch you were talking about
ear
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 16:17 -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> Carol Hebert wrote:
> > Hi Corey,
> >
> > This latest patch worked great on my 2-node system! :-D I'll try to
> > get some time on a 4-node and 8-node system asap to test it out on them
> > as well.
> >
> > I've listed below how ipmi and
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> This latest patch worked great on my 2-node system! :-D I'll try to
> get some time on a 4-node and 8-node system asap to test it out on them
> as well.
>
> I've listed below how ipmi and the BMCs are now represented in sysfs.
> Do you still want me to continu
Hi Corey,
This latest patch worked great on my 2-node system! :-D I'll try to
get some time on a 4-node and 8-node system asap to test it out on them
as well.
I've listed below how ipmi and the BMCs are now represented in sysfs.
Do you still want me to continue working on trying to get some u
Corey Minyard wrote:
>
>> Please let me know what I can do to help. In the meantime, I'll take a
>> look at the current code and try to figure out why it's still oopsing.
>>
> I thought the oops was fixed. If not, can you send one?
>
> As far as things you can do, I'm not really sure. I do
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> Sorry I wasn't able to reply sooner. I wanted to discuss this with a
> couple of other folks first.
>
> As per your first solution listed below, I'm going to propose asap that
> we modify the f/w to ensure that the device ID is unique for every BMC.
> I don't kn
Hi Corey,
Sorry I wasn't able to reply sooner. I wanted to discuss this with a
couple of other folks first.
As per your first solution listed below, I'm going to propose asap that
we modify the f/w to ensure that the device ID is unique for every BMC.
I don't know yet if the proposal will be ac
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe your assessment of my x460 dual-node system configuration is
> correct with the exception of maybe changing the word "slot" to "system"
> since the nodes are joined by scalability cables rather than being
> connected via a common backplane.
>
> Regarding the
Hi,
I believe your assessment of my x460 dual-node system configuration is
correct with the exception of maybe changing the word "slot" to "system"
since the nodes are joined by scalability cables rather than being
connected via a common backplane.
Regarding the uniqueness of the Device ID, I th
Now the driver is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, but now that
may not be what we want. I'm not sure of the configuration of this
system, but the information below gives me some clues. Here's my guess
on the system:
This is a NUMA system with hot-plug CPU boards. Each board has an IPMI
Hi Corey,
I'm still having problems with the new patches due to the device ID and
the Product ID being the same on each of the nodes (still have
segfault/oops). The dual node system is really two separate nodes that
are joined at will (via RSA setup). Since each began life (and can
resume life a
Hi Corey,
Thanks very much for the patch. :-) I built it and ran it on my system
and it works a bit better than the original but it still has some
problems. I'm attaching the dmesg output below (with a bit of debug
turned on in it).
With the patch, the modprobe appears to create one of the t
Hopefully the attached patch will fix the problem and clean up the error
handling in this failure case.
-Corey
Carol Hebert wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> I believe I may have found a problem with the ipmi driver v39 in the
> 2.6.18 kernel when loaded on multi-node systems (in my particular case,
> an du
The basic problem is that platform_device_alloc() is being called with
the device id, but not the product id as part of the name. According to
the spec, The combo of the two is required to be unique on a machine.
But the device id is the same on both BMCs, it appears.
Carol, can you confirm that
Hi Carol,
On 10/6/06, Carol Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe I may have found a problem with the ipmi driver v39 in the
> 2.6.18 kernel when loaded on multi-node systems (in my particular case,
> an dual-node x460 with two BMCs). At first glance, it appears the
> problem may be in th
Hi Corey,
I believe I may have found a problem with the ipmi driver v39 in the
2.6.18 kernel when loaded on multi-node systems (in my particular case,
an dual-node x460 with two BMCs). At first glance, it appears the
problem may be in the sysfs code added last January -- it looks like it
may not
25 matches
Mail list logo
