Summary: IMM: Discard node for self changed from osafassert to LOG_ER & exit
[#60]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 60
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default(4.4)
Development branch:
--------------------------------
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 323733e1c28b4e101e9bb87084e2a8db9931e879
Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:13:21 +0100
IMM: Discard node for self changed from osafassert to LOG_ER & exit
[#60]
If an IMMND receives a discard-node message and the node to be
discarded is
the node the IMMND is executing on, then this is a clear indication of
cluster network partitioning, or "split brain". The action taken by the
IMMND was to osafassert if this happened. But such an assert generates a
coredump resulting in unnecesary tickets on and troubleshooting off the
IMM.
With this patch, the error is instead log'ed to the syslog and then
IMMND
exits. It should then be clear why the IMMND restarts and that it was
not
due to an error in the IMMND.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 7 ++++++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Hard to reproduce.
Possibly try to overload MDS etc.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
The syslog message of severity error visible in the patch source code should
be seen in the syslog if and when a cluster partitioning occurs over MDS.
But this enhancement is trivial and does not really need to be tested for
effectiveness. REview of the few lines of code and some regression function
testing should be enough.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
