Summary: amfd : clear node level admin op related flags during sufailover 
[#663] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): AMF #663 
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F., Nagendra. 
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): Default and 4.4 
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 the commit log below. Also ticket can be referred for the analysis.

changeset 08d3cc0fd5164bddc8bca2384fb6afe2308f78f0
Author: [email protected]
Date:   Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:47:41 +0530

        amfd : clear node level admin op related flags during sufailover [#663] 
When
        admin operation like lock and shutdown are performed on Node and this 
leads
        to sufailover, AMFD is not clearing the operation related flag in node
        pointer. This patch ensures if sufailover gets escalated when admin
        operation is performed on the node, then AMF will clear operation 
related
        flag. Also AMF will respond to IMM for the completion of operation.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/proc.h |   1 +
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc      |  31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
1)Tested by bringing the configuration attached in the ticket 663.xml.
   -During node lock, reject quiesced callback with recovery sufailover. 
   -Node unlock
  All node level admin operation related parameters will be reset in
  sg_su_failover_func () and AMFD will respond to IMM.
2)Also tested by brining two applications simultaneously.
   -During node lock, delay the response for quiesced callback for application2.
    In the meantime reject quiesced callback for 663.xml with recovery 
sufailover.
   -Node unlock
  Since application2 will respond to AMFD after sufailover escalation of 
663.xml, all node level 
  admin operation related parameters will be reset in avd_su_si_assign_evh() 
  and AMFD will respond to IMM.

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Unlock of node pass.

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Hans or Nagendra.

Arch      Built     Started    Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips        n          n
mips64      n          n
x86         y          y
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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to