Hi AndersBj, I re-checked the #560 patch and will change the goto tag of lock_fail to a meaningful tags for the following part of the patch:
1. saImmOiRtObjectUpdate_2 2. initialize_common and for the rest of changes, have meaningful tags. will send the new patch for review for #602. Thanks, Neel. On Wednesday 23 October 2013 06:49 PM, Anders Björnerstedt wrote: > Hi Neel, > > What I dont like is a having a goto tag labeled "lock_failed" that is located > before code that releases the lock. This means that the meaning of the tag has > Clearly changed and you should wither rename the tag to something else not > Just signifying that squiring the lock has failed, or move the lock_failed > tag back > To its original place twoards he end of the function and create a new tag. > > This may seem like nit-picking but the problem with missleading names, even > if there > Is currently no concrete problem, is that the next time someone changes > something in > the code, the risk of missunderstanding the code increases. > > So again please try to make you fix of the memory leak as contained ss > possible, > not rearranging other code that has nothing to do with the memory leak fix. > And if you want to rearrange the code, then rename goto tags in a meaningfull > way. > > /AndersBj > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 23 oktober 2013 11:42 > To: Anders Björnerstedt > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for IMM: free the client node > intialization of IMMA fails(#602) > > Hi AndersBj, > > Comments Below. > > /Neel > On Wednesday 23 October 2013 01:30 PM, Anders Björnerstedt wrote: >> 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. > There is no relation between #560 and #563. > while pushing the patches, there is typo instead of 560 the 563 is used in > the commit message. >> 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. > true, but except for the cases in which the lock is not taken (#602 is a case > where unlock is called, but lock is not taken). >> Now it seems that goto tag is placed before such code, even after the new >> patch. > By mistake in the #560 patch, for the case of #602 the goto tag is replaced > with lock_failed The #602 is the case where the immnd is down, > ImmOmInitialize sees the immnd is down and gives TRY_AGAIN. > By default locked is true. Because of this unlock fails and asserts. >> 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. > The main reason, why goto tag is rearranged is to free cl_node, if the return > code is not AIS_OK. > For the case of #602, i have to escape the unlock and try to free the cl_node > in initialize_common function if the return code is not AIS_OK. > used the same goto tag as it is in the original state before #560. >> /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
