Ack. Alex
On 05/07/2014 07:03 AM, Hans Feldt wrote: > Summary: Fix SU in-service calculation > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 493 > Peer Reviewer(s): Alex & Nags > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es): all > Development branch: 4.3 > > -------------------------------- > 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 447d7151fe1413435deef8527cdd0be0be350d97 > Author: Hans Feldt <hans.fe...@ericsson.com> > Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 13:00:12 +0200 > > avd: fix SU in-service check [#493] > > SUs assigned before instantiated: May 2 18:56:32 linux > osafamfnd[12420]: NO > Assigned 'safSi=Dataplane- Np1-SI-1,safApp=DataplaneApp' STANDBY to > 'safSu > =Dataplane-SU1,safSg =Dataplane-Np1,safApp=DataplaneApp' May 2 18:56:39 > linux osafamfnd[12420]: NO 'safSu=Dataplane-SU1,safSg =Dataplane- > Np1,safApp=DataplaneApp' Presence State INSTANTIATING => INSTANTIATED > > In some places where the macro m_AVD_APP_SU_IS_INSVC is used, the > presence > state for pre-instantiable SUs is not handled properly. > > By changing the macro into a function which correctly checks presence > state > for pre-instantiable SUs this problem can be solved. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avd/avd_node.c | 11 +---------- > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avd/avd_sgproc.c | 23 ++++------------------- > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avd/avd_su.c | 52 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avd/include/avd_su.h | 10 ++-------- > 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > start uml cluster and add demo app > failover demo app > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > works > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > ack from reviewers > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
