[openib-general] Re: [RFC] OpenSM Interactive Console

[Eitan Zahavi]

Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 17:11, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> 
>>Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>
>>>Currently, OpenSM does not support an interactive console. There has
>>>been a desire to introduce the ability to change certain parameters
> 
> (as
> 
>>>well as display things) once OpenSM has started. This patch
> 
> introduces
> 
>>>the first most basic commands: help and loglevel. I am investgating
>>>adding smpriority to this. The console is invoked by specifying
> 
> -console
> 
>>>as an option on the opensm command line.
>>>
>>>If you have a request for a command you would like in the console, I
>>>would like to compile a list of these. 
>>>
>>>Comments ?
>>
>>OpenSM gen1 has a nice TCL API (named osmsh) that lets you do all that
> 
> 
>>and much more.
>>Setting ALL options is supported.
>>It also provides a Tcl access to the SM Database so you can write your
> 
> own 
> 
>>reports on FDB/MC-FDB etc.
>>Interactive control on the discovery and fabric settings sequence
> 
> allows 
> 
>>"single stepping" too.
> 
> 
> IMO osmsh is more a debugger's tool. It relies on OpenSM globals and
> internal SM data structures rather than well defined APIs which might
> isolate the user from changes. (It exposes the internals of the SM and
> SM modifications may cause scripts using osmsh) to stop working, and
> worse than that, osmsh scripts may cause serious SM bugs.
What is unsafe in running the following basic code?
osm_opts configure -log_file $log_file_name.
osm_init
osm_bind $guid
osm_sweep
osm_set_verbosity 0xffff

> 
> I think there is a place for a "safer" console. Perhaps there are levels
> of access privileges where some can do RO things and others have RW
> access.
How would this privilege right be granted?
> 
> 
>>The OpenSM user manual provides extensive description of it, 
>>including some programming examples.
> 
> 
> What OpenSM documentation ? I didn't see any with the 1.8.0 release.
It is in the 1.7.1 1.7.0 manuals too.
> 
> 
>>Porting of osmsh to gen2 should be very simple.
> 
> 
> Is someone working on doing this ?
No - but if needed we can do that.
> 
> 
>>I do not see why we need to invent yet another way to do these things.
>>Instead I would recommend including osm Tcl extension in the gen2
> 
> trunk 
> 
>>and put it to work.
> 
> 
> -- Hal
>