Summary: cpsv: standardize arrival callback API(s) with SAF syntax [#561]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #561
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans ,Mathi & Sirisha
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): Default
Development branch: default
--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
Following are the converted (or standardized) APIs to SAF style (by
incrementing the minor version to say, B.02.03):
1) SaCkptCallbacksT_2
Prototype:
typedef struct {
SaCkptCheckpointOpenCallbackT saCkptCheckpointOpenCallback;
SaCkptCheckpointSynchronizeCallbackT saCkptCheckpointSynchronizeCallback;
saCkptCheckpointTrackCallbackT saCkptCheckpointTrackCallback;
} SaCkptCallbacksT_2;
2) saCkptCheckpointTrackCallbackT
Prototype:
typedef void (SaCkptCheckpointTrackCallbackT)(
SaCkptCheckpointHandleT checkpointHandle,
SaCkptIOVectorElementT ioVector,
SaUint32T numberOfElements
);
3) saCkptInitialize_2()
Prototype:
SaAisErrorT saCkptInitialize_2(
SaCkptHandleT ckptHandle,
const SaCkptCallbacksT_2 ckptCallbacks,
SaVersionT *version
);
4) saCkptTrack()
Prototype:
SaAisErrorT saCkptTrack(SaCkptHandleT ckptHandle);
5) saCkptTrackStop()
Prototype:
SaAisErrorT saCkptTrackStop(SaCkptHandleT ckptHandle);
changeset 7c3ea8cbcbe95d7f19770d3a94742f912ea79bd7
Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:57:51 +0530
cpsv: standardize arrival callback API(s) with SAF syntax [#561]
Added Files:
------------
osaf/libs/saf/include/saCkpt_B_02_03.h
Complete diffstat:
------------------
opensaf.spec.in | 1 +
osaf/libs/agents/saf/cpa/cpa_api.c | 538
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
osaf/libs/agents/saf/cpa/cpa_proc.c | 6 +-
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/cpsv_edu.c | 22 ++++-
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpa_cb.h | 3 +-
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpa_def.h | 2 +-
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpa_proc.h | 2 +-
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpsv.h | 7 +
osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpsv_evt.h | 8 +-
osaf/libs/saf/include/Makefile.am | 1 +
osaf/libs/saf/include/saCkpt_B_02_03.h | 66 +++++++++++++
osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_evt.c | 39 +++++++-
12 files changed, 677 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
New API`s functionality should work as non sttandred API (cpsv_papi.h ),
with backward compatible.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
<<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
