IPMI Set LAN Configuration Parameters

[Patrick Venture]

I thought you had to explicitly set in_progress with the ipmitool?  My
own ipmitool utility is implemented as you described where it doesn't
assume anything about your intent, just follows the actions.

There's definitely the possibility of thrashing.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Dave Cobbley
<david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Do you have any concerns about ipmitool constantly flushing the network as
> it sets & unsets the complete bit inbetween parameters,
> i.e. if you are setting 4 different parameters from a script?
>
> I'm not sure if this brings a lot of thrashing to the to the ipmi network
> stack or network manager.
>
> Seems like it would be prudent to fix ipmitool upstream to allow you to set
> multiple parameters, in addition to the ipmi stack.
>
>
>> I personally have found this non-standard implementation a bit
>> unpleasant, as it requires using a different command to basically
>> flush it.  I am planning to implement it such that setting in progress
>> before and complete after is how it all gets flushed instead of a
>> timeout, since that approach reads more correct given the
>> specification.  And really it's just about literally calling a
>> subroutine to flush everything when the in_progress bit is set to
>> completed, and removing the code from "access on"
>>
>> If you're interested to do what I've just described, I don't think
>> you'll get any push-back.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Dave Cobbley
>> <david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed that when using ipmitool lan set <channel> <parameter>, the
>>> openbmc stack does not apply the settings. This seems like a non-standard
>>> implementation. While using ipmitool as the standard is not quite
>>> correct,
>>> customers do expect it to work.
>>>
>>> After sending any sort of lan set command with ipmitool, the changes
>>> don't
>>> appear to stick and this message shows up in the journal:
>>>      "Use Set Channel Access command to apply"
>>>
>>> I know IPMI 2.0 is a little ambiguous about implementation specifics, but
>>> I
>>> believe the intention was to utilize the "Set In Progress" bit (Parameter
>>> 0)
>>> while doing work, and use "Set Complete" when you are finished to flush
>>> the
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> To work around ipmitool constantly setting and unsetting the "Set In
>>> Progress" bit in between every parameter applied, some BMC stacks
>>> accumulate
>>> network changes over a period of time and apply after a timeout - this is
>>> also compatible with ipmitool's non-standard use of the "Set In Progress"
>>> bit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a plan to circle back and change this functionality to work with
>>> ipmitool in the future?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Dave Cobbley
>>>
>