Hi Neel, First, obviously we did not review your fix for #560 properly. I also now see that the changesets for the fix for #560 are actually tagged with #563. Ticket #560 says that the problem is related to #563, but I dont see how. Or perhaps you just mean that you discovered problem #560 while testing for #563 ? But #563 was obviously ccreated after #560 so that does not quite make sense.
Second, the fix for #560 rearranged the code moving the "lock_failed" tag. Originally that tag was placed after any code that tries to unlock the lock. Now it seems that goto tag is placed before such code, even after the new patch. Could you try to change the new patch so that it reverts back the code to the original state (before the #560 fix (tagged as #563)) and so that the fix for the memory leak is as localized as possible. Possibly introduce a dedicated goto tag just for that rare case. /AndersBj -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 22 oktober 2013 15:41 To: Anders Björnerstedt Cc: [email protected] Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for IMM: free the client node intialization of IMMA fails(#602) Summary:IMM: free the client node intialization of IMMA fails(#602) Review request for Trac Ticket(s):602 Peer Reviewer(s):AndersBj, zoran Affected branch(es):default,4.3.x,4.2.x Development branch: 4.3 -------------------------------- 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): --------------------------------------------- <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> changeset 6e07bfef0906a11245fa65303344ea06b9efab37 Author: Neelakanta Reddy<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:07:11 +0530 IMM: free the client node intialization of IMMA fails(#602) If the intialization of IMMA agen fails, then free the cl_node. Testing Commands: ----------------- If any application tries to initialize when IMMND is down, will be asserted. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Application must not assert. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from AndersBj Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y 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=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
