Summary: mds: use correct buff length to distinguish send mcast or multi-unicast [#1036] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1036 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel/Ramesh Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): default & 4.5 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 n Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset b82fbdc3063110aaf945fa2a5f9f2988c0160d96 Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:05:24 +0530 mds: use correct buff-length to distinguish mcast or multi-unicast [#1036] In the curent implementtaion of MDS Broadcast , if the Broadcast message size is below 2^16 ,mds send that Broadcast message as Multicast , otherwise as multi-unicast ,so that it can be fragmented and send. Because of checking with unpopulated Bcast buff length value ( zero value ) which distinguishes Broadcast message to sent as Multicast or multi-unicast. So mds end up with sending one one multi-unicast in cluster( fist avalible IMMND subscription list) and the reaming (IMMNDs detecting out of order messages. Now used the populated Bcast buff length value Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_c_sndrcv.c | 41 ++++++++++++++--------------------------- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
