Summary: amfnd: issue remove cbk for assigning csi after successful assignment [#1046]. Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1046 Peer Reviewer(s): Nagendra, Hans N. Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): ALL Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
-------------------------------- 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 8b948b7e6354012962470f25a388cf4aed914b5f Author: [email protected] Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:37:31 +0530 amfnd: issue remove cbk for assigning csi after successful assignment [#1046] A user locks a SI and a component faults with comp_restart recovery during remove callback on standby SU. After this when user tries to unlock SI, unlock operation gets timed out. When AMFND gets removal of assignment on standby SU (having three comps), because of lock operation on SI, it issues removal callback to comp1. While comp1 is handling removal callback another healthy component, which is still assigned for a CSI of this SI, faults with comp_restart recovery. When comp2 gets repaired, AMF reassigns CSIs to it. In the meantime, when comp1 responds for the removal callback AMFND does not issue removal callback to the CSI of comp2 as it is in assigning state. AMFND goes on and finishes removal in comp3. After successful reassignments in comp2, AMFND does not issue removal callback to comp2. Due to this, AMFD did not get response from AMFND for successful removal of SI. Patch fixes the problem by issuing removal callback for a assigning CSI after successful assignment. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/include/avnd_comp.h | 5 +++++ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/sidb.cc | 1 + 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Tested as per the case and configuration given in the ticket's comment. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Lock and unlock of SI remain successful. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from any reviewer. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
