Summary: plm: don't reset self during plms_ee_instantiate
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1031
Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi, Nagu
Pull request to: Mathi
Affected branch(es): default, 4.5
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 1e666e56246f4f18063be688cbadb48465ee4cbd
Author: Alex Jones <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:53:21 -0400
plm: don't reset self during plms_ee_instantiate [#1031]
Active controller resets during OpenSAF startup when modeled as an HE
with
dependent HEs in it.
If the active controller blade (modeled as an HE) has HE dependencies
(some
other FRUs on the board), this blade/HE will only be brought in-service
when
the other HEs on which it depends are brought in-service. At this point,
plms_ee_instantiate() is called and the controller ends up resetting
itself.
plms_ent_enable() is called in plms_move_dep_ent_to_insvc(). This
function,
plms_ent_enable(), is not called if there are no dependencies, and
hardware
is not inserted. If the hardware is already present, and there are no
dependencies, plms_ent_enable() is not called, which means
plms_ee_instantiate() is not called. If the active controller blade/HE
does
not depend on any other HEs, plms_ee_instantiate() is never called, and
so
the blade can never reset itself.
The solution is to get the entity path from HPI, on which we are
currently
running, and compare it to the HE which is the parent of the EE being
reset.
If they are the same, then don't reset.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
contrib/plmc/lib/utils/plmc_get_listening_ip_addr.c | 1 -
osaf/libs/common/plmsv/include/plms.h | 1 +
osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/hpi_intf/plms_hsm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++-
osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/plms_plmc.c | 13 +++++
4 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
0) you must use HPI version B.03.01 or greater to test this
1) create an HE that models the blade on which the active controller will run
2) add some HE dependencies using SaPlmDependency so that this blade depends on
other HEs on it.
3) create an EE that models the OS for this blade
4) start opensafd and plmcd
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
1) plms_ee_instantiate is called, and blade is not reset
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 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 excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
