Summary: smf: update campaign state before restoring pbe in the completed state Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #944 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected] Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 4.4.x, default 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): --------------------------------------------- changeset d2846c8fed95dcec256faf787bb9a257652cb585 Author: Mathivanan N.P.<[email protected]> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:12:27 -0400 smf: update campaign state before restoring pbe in the completed state [#944] By way of ticket #677 we restore the pbe in the campaign completed state itself. i.e. In SmfCampStateExecuting::executeWrapup() { a) we first restore the pbe i.e. i_camp->restorePbe(); b) And, then subsequently update the campaign state, i.e. changeState(i_camp, SmfCampStateExecCompleted::instance()); } However, it is possible that when the pbe is restored, the pbe could take more time (than the immutil wait time) to become functionally ready. And in such sitautions, the updation to the campaign state will not succeed until the PBE is really ready. The patch updates the campaign state first (to imm) inthe completed state and subsequently restores the pbe. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampState.cc | 7 ++++--- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- The patch requires simulation of a scenario were pberestore takes a lot of time. Trigger an upgrade. Upgrades should work fine. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Same as above. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Ingvar. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
