Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] GCPS Spec Compliance Patch Set

[Hari Kalavakunta]

On 4/8/2025 3:35 PM, Paul Fertser wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:02:14PM -0700, Hari Kalavakunta wrote:
> > On 4/8/2025 12:19 PM, Paul Fertser wrote:
> >
> > > In other words, you're testing your code only with simulated data so
> > > there's no way to guarantee it's going to work on any real life
> > > hardware (as we know hardware doesn't always exactly match the specs)?
> > > That's unsettling. Please do mention it in the commit log, it's an
> > > essential point. Better yet, consider going a bit off-centre after the
> > > regular verification and do a control run on real hardware.
> > >
> > > After all, that's what the code is for so if it all possible it's
> > > better to know if it does the actual job before merging (to avoid
> > > noise from follow-up patches like yours which fix something that never
> > > worked because it was never tested).
> >
> > I would like to request a week's time to integrate a real hardware
> > interface, which will enable me to test and demonstrate end-to-end results.
> > This will also allow me to identify and address any additional issues that
> > may arise during the testing process. Thank you for the feedback.
>
> Thank you for doing the right thing! Looking forward to your updated
> patch (please do not forget to consider __be64 for the fields).

I had not previously considered using __be64 for the struct 
ncsi_rsp_gcps_pkt, as it is an interface structure. I would like to seek 
your input on whether it is a good idea to use __be64 for interface 
messages. In my experience, I haven't come across implementations that 
utilize __be64. I am unsure about the portability of this approach, 
particularly with regards to the Management Controller (MC).