Summary: use SAHPI_HS_ACTION_XXX for activating/deactivating HE if Full-5 HS 
model
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 943
Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi
Pull request to: Mathi
Affected branch(es): default
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 49a80c50cd5c7e8579106e3c328cc42f6fb14b56
Author: Alex Jones <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:15:35 -0400

        plm: use SAHPI_HS_ACTION_XXX for activating/deactivating HE if Full-5 HS
        model [#943]

        Jul 14 16:56:02 linux-po6q osafplmd[32627]: ER plms_hrb_req FAILED. Ent:
        safHE=Fan_Tray_1,safDomain=Q50chassis, cmd: 6#011#011#011resp: 2 Jul 14
        16:56:02 linux-po6q osafplmd[32627]: ER Ent
        safHE=Fan_Tray_1,safDomain=Q50chassis deactivation failed.

        PLMs is using SAHPI_POWER_ON/OFF for Full/Partial-5 Hotswap entities, 
which
        is not correct. This is not consistent with hsm_get_hotswap_model() in
        plms_hsm.c which sets Full/Partial-5 based on whether or not
        SAHPI_CAPABILITY_MANAGED_HOTSWAP is set. If SAHPI_CAPABILITY_POWER is 
set,
        then the model is 3-HS. According to the documentation for
        saHpiResourcePowerStateSet "SA_ERR_HPI_CAPABILITY is returned if the
        resource does not support power management, as indicated by
        SAHPI_CAPABILITY_POWER in the resource's RPT entry." A Full/Partial-5 
will
        never have SAHPI_CAPABILITY_POWER set.

        SAHPI_HS_ACTION_INSERTION/EXTRACTION should be used instead for
        Full/Partial-5 entities. Also, some changes were made to facilitate
        debugging. The code is printing out SaErrorT as an unsigned int, but it 
is
        a signed int, so the return codes from these HPI API calls are not 
properly
        printing out.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/hpi_intf/plms_hrb.c |  35 ++++++++++++-----------
 osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/plms_he_pres_fsm.c  |   8 ++--
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
1) Issue a PLM admin deactivate on an HE that is a Full-Partial/5 entity


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
1) It should deactivate, and there should be no errors from HPI.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to