Summary: imm: Return TRY_AGAIN only when object apllier matches the Re-using implementerset info[ #1078] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1078 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersBj, zoran Affected branch(es): 4.3.x,4.4.x,4.5x.,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 n OpenSAF services y Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset cefea27ab56a76794d8806bca6a3883aa134d878 Author: Neelakanta Reddy<[email protected]> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:31:56 +0530 imm: Return TRY_AGAIN only when object apllier matches the Re-using implementerset info[ #1078] Presently if the active ccb object contains an object-applier TRY_AGAIN is returned.The solution is when implementerset is called activeccbs are checked, return TRY_AGAIN only when the object apllier has same implementer info as the newly connected implementer. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 13 ++++++++----- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Reproducible steps: 1. create two calsses class1 class2 2. create object obj for class1 3. create application with class applier for class2 @app1 4. create application with object applier for object obj @app2 5. modify the object obj and insert a sleep before apply 6. close the application with class applier for class2 @app1 and try to re-connect Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- TRY_AGAIN must be returned only when the object apllier has same implementer info as the newly connected implementer Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from AndersBj 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
