Summary: amfnd: perform su failover if npi su translates into inst fail state [#1025] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1025 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F, Hans N, Praveen Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): All 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 b87da30c57b2b54772a28e8ea70b9a6c31adc785 Author: Nagendra Kumar<[email protected]> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:38:37 +0530 amfnd: perform su failover if npi su translates into inst fail state [#1025] Amfnd tries to send susi response if npi su presence state translates into instantiation failed state from restarting state. This is wrong. As restarting npi su can't be in assigning mode when it is in restarting state. So, Amfnd is not supposed to send susi response to Amfd. Code changes makes sure that npi su is failed over on other su if it happens. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc | 15 ++++++++++++--- 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Start and assign npi su with single component(with pm monitoring) on SC-1 and SC-2. 1. Kill active component and return error form instantiation script. Component moves into instantiation state after comfigured retries. 2. Standby component gets Act role. 3. Repair component from instantiation failed state, amf gives standby role to the repaired component. 4. Perform SU lock and unlock on both the SUs. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- All test cases passed. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from peer 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
