Summary: amfd: send SI admin response after sg becomes stable [#1022]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1022
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F, Hans N, Praveen 
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.5.x, default
Development branch: default 

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
 <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>

changeset d856d62196c5672c9a16cc2299537ddb9b3a83d4
Author: Nagendra Kumar<[email protected]>
Date:   Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:02:29 +0530

        amfd: send SI admin response after sg becomes stable [#1022] When
        node(hosting act appl) goes down during SI lock, Amfd is not sending 
admin
        response to imm. This makes admin command to timeout. This happens 
because
        during SI lock, Standby appl sends response, but Act appl node goes 
down and
        Amf waits for quisced susi response to send imm response in
        avd_su_si_assign_evh, which never comes as node has gone down. So, 
ideally,
        admin response should be sent when marking Sg stable, this will make 
sure to
        send admin response in any scenario including node down.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg.cc     |  9 +++++++++
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc |  9 ---------
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
As per ticket.


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Admin command gets response.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from maintainers


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to