Changes are fine to me. Thanks, Ramesh.
On 12/16/2013 7:20 PM, Hans Nordebäck wrote: > Hi Ramesh, is it ok if I push this patch today?/BR HansN > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Widell > Sent: den 10 december 2013 10:42 > To: Hans Nordebäck; Hans Feldt; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for base: use _Exit instead of > exit in daemon_exit #581 > > Ack with comment. The ticket number is still not surrounded with square > brackets [#581] in the first line of the commit message. > > regards, > Anders Widell > > 2013-12-10 10:37, Hans Nordeback skrev: >> Summary: base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit [#581] Review >> request for Trac Ticket(s): 581 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW,HansF,Ramesh >> Pull request to: >> Affected branch(es): default(4.4) >> Development branch: default >> >> -------------------------------- >> Impacted area Impact y/n >> -------------------------------- >> Docs n >> Build system n >> RPM/packaging n >> Configuration files n >> Startup scripts n >> SAF services n >> OpenSAF services n >> Core libraries y >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> >> >> changeset 8d36c7f02507201c39204ad7afc7574bb6cdc4a0 >> Author: Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:24:37 +0100 >> >> base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 >> >> use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit. The change was done due to >> that >> exit() is not thread safe, see e.g. ticket #651. To make it possible to >> dump >> e.g. coverage data on termination a weak reference to __gcov_flush has >> been >> added. >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/libs/core/common/daemon.c | 8 +++++++- >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> >> >> >> 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=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
