Hi zoran, Reviewed the patch. Ack from me (Not tested).
/Neel. On Tuesday 15 October 2013 12:45 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Ack from me. > Not tested. > > /AndersBj > > Zoran Milinkovic wrote: >> Summary: IMM: fix IMM handle lock when SA_IMM_SEARCH_GET_CONFIG_ATTR >> is used in attribute names [#595] >> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 595 >> Peer Reviewer(s): Neel, Anders >> Pull request to: Zoran >> Affected branch(es): default(4.4) >> Development branch: default(4.4) >> >> -------------------------------- >> Impacted area Impact y/n >> -------------------------------- >> Docs n >> Build system n >> RPM/packaging n >> Configuration files n >> Startup scripts n >> SAF services y >> OpenSAF services n >> Core libraries n >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset 8b83ef6716d445ae33486c840935f21de52e4b98 >> Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> >> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:23:14 +0200 >> >> IMM: fix IMM handle lock when SA_IMM_SEARCH_GET_CONFIG_ATTR is >> used in >> attribute names [#595] >> >> The patch contains the fix for locking IMM handle if attribute >> names contain >> SA_IMM_SEARCH_GET_CONFIG_ATTR in IMM version lower than A.02.11 >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_om_api.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> Test saImmOmAccessorGet_2 with attribute name >> SA_IMM_SEARCH_GET_CONFIG_ATTR and set IMM version A.02.01. >> Use the same IMM handle for any synchronous IMM function. >> >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> Ack from Neel >> >> >> Arch Built Started Linux distro >> ------------------------------------------- >> mips n n >> mips64 n n >> x86 n n >> x86_64 n n >> powerpc n n >> powerpc64 n n >> >> >> Reviewer Checklist: >> ------------------- >> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] >> >> >> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): >> >> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank >> entries >> that need proper data filled in. >> >> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. >> >> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header >> >> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. >> >> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your >> headers/comments/text. >> >> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. >> >> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files >> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) >> >> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. >> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. >> >> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. >> >> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes >> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. >> >> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other >> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. >> >> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is >> too much content into a single commit. >> >> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) >> >> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; >> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. >> >> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded >> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. >> >> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear >> indication >> of what has changed between each re-send. >> >> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the >> comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial >> review. >> >> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) >> >> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the >> the threaded patch review. >> >> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results >> for in-service upgradability test. >> >> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series >> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> October Webinars: Code for Performance >> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. >> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the >> most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts >> and register > >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensaf-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
