On 04-Nov-13 1:41 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: > Hi, > > What do yo mean with "CSIs are unevenly distributed", please explain. > Explaining through an example because I did not find any term for this in spec: Suppose a SU has two components comp1 with comptype1 and comp2 with comptype2. Also there are two SIs SI1 (havingCSIs csi1 and csi2) and SI2 ( with one CSI3). Other entities are arranged such that comp1 will receive CSI1 and CSI2 respectively from SI1 and SI2 while comp2 will receive only one CSI from SI2. So there is no workload on comp2 for SI1. I think I could have better written "SIs are unevenly distributed" but similar situation may arise for CSis of same SI also. Please confirm if it clarifies the doubt.
Thanks Praveen > Thanks, > Hans > > On 11/04/2013 05:44 AM, praveen malviya wrote: >> Please review this patch for #203 also. >> >> Thanks >> Praveen >> On 29-Oct-13 9:56 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Summary: amfnd : issue remove cbk to all comps when CSIs are >>> unevenly distributed [#233] >>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): AMF #233 >>> Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F., Nagendra >>> Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> >>> Affected branch(es):All >>> Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>> >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> 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): >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> Please see commit log below and ticket. >>> >>> changeset db4f84b52cb6a4d1794bd8a4d433a234842cd56b >>> Author: [email protected] >>> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:05 +0530 >>> >>> amfnd : issue remove cbk to all comps when CSIs are unevenly >>> distributed >>> [#233] When AMFND gets removal of assignments from AMFD, remove >>> callbacks >>> are issued with TARGET_ALL to first level CSIs in reverse order. >>> When >>> components respond back to AMFND, remove callbacks are issued >>> for second >>> level CSIs and so on. It is found that sometimes callbacks are >>> not issued >>> from second level onwards when CSIs are not distributed evenly >>> among >>> components. In such a case removal of assignment is not >>> completed and AMFND >>> never sends response to AMFD for removal. This patch ensures >>> that remove >>> callbacks are issued to all assigned comps in TARGET_ALL case. >>> >>> >>> Complete diffstat: >>> ------------------ >>> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc | 45 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >>> >>> >>> Testing Commands: >>> ----------------- >>> Tested the configuration updated in the ticket >>> >>> Testing, Expected Results: >>> -------------------------- >>> Lock of SU successful >>> >>> Conditions of Submission: >>> ------------------------- >>> Ack from reviewer >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development >>> platform that >>> developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download >>> this white >>> paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can >>> help keep >>> Android apps secure. >>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep Android apps secure. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
