Hi AndersBj, Reviewed the patch. Not able to reproduce. Tested the basic PBE flows. Ack.
/Neel. On Thursday 04 September 2014 03:31 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: PBE exits on errors where sqlite-handle has been closed [#996] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 996 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 4.3; 4.4; 4.5: default(4.6) > 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 6b2e0aa0dadf26ccabe52822604841803680917c > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:49:31 +0200 > > IMM: PBE exits on errors where sqlite-handle has been closed [#996] > > Errors returned from calls in the library: > > osaf/libs/common/immsv/immpbe_dump.cc > > where the sqlite handle has been closed, are caught by the PBE and > result in > the PBE exiting. This is a correction to the fix done for ticket #869. > That > ticket altered these library routines not to exit on error, to allow the > users to clean up temporary sqlite files before process exit. > > The same library functions may also fail (and close the sqlite handle) > during normal PBE processing (not during initial generation of the > file). > This ticket fixes so that the PBE exits, instead of continuing to > execute > with a closed sqlite handle. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immpbed/immpbe.cc | 15 +++++++-------- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immpbed/immpbe_daemon.cc | 8 ++++++-- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > To reproduce the error requires fault-injection so that one of the > pbe-dump-library routines fails and closes the sqlite handle. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > When this happens in the PBE process, the PBE shall exit. > This fixes the problem reported by this ticket. > > The same kind of failure can also occurr when the immdump tool > invokes these routines. That was solved by the fix for #869. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel. > > > 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
