Summary: Fix imma reconnect Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1024 Peer Reviewer(s): Anders B, Neel (submitter) & Mahesh (MDS) Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 4.5 & 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 n OpenSAF services n Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 768e49fecfb25895cc806795a4c34be17c03c647 Author: Hans Feldt <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:44:59 +0200 mds: make process_info_db independent of control block [#1024] The process_info_db needs to be available early before MDS is initialized. So its initialization is moved to mds_auth_server_create(). The patricia tree cannot be located in the control block which is dynamically created so it is now statically allocated. changeset 08d727f644d7b84e11c132723edbfe2bee8565e7 Author: Hans Feldt <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:49:40 +0200 imma: always reconnect to auth-server at immnd up [#1024] After immnd restart the IMM interface no longer worked. Reason was that the client was not re-connected and its MDS dest registered in the server. Now registration is always done after having received the MDS UP event. A missing lock/unlock was added in imma_process_stale_clients. This could potentially have caused inconsistency in the patricia tree since it could be accessed by two threads at the same time. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_init.c | 10 ---------- osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_mds.c | 13 +++++++++++++ osaf/libs/core/mds/include/mds_core.h | 3 ++- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_c_api.c | 14 ++------------ osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_c_db.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_main.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- 6 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- repeatedly kill immnd at the same time a client program continues to exercise the API 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 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
