Summary: PLM: fix blade extraction mechanism Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1378 Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi Pull request to: Mathi Affected branch(es): 4.5, 4.6, default 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): --------------------------------------------- <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> changeset 1d5402442516a05d4ade8a4323796683128d1a83 Author: Alex Jones <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:33:43 -0400 plm: fix blade extraction mechanism [#1378] Blade extraction does not work consistently. If you extract a blade, and AMF should reject it (because it cannot failover the services), the blade will sometimes still deactivate. The standby plm daemon is not calling saHpiHotSwapPolicyCancel and saHpiAutoExtractTimeoutSet for the resources. When openhpid on the standby controller gets the pending extraction message from the shelf manager, it happily allows the extraction to proceed because it doesn't have the extraction policy set. The openhpid on the active controller has been programmed by the active plm daemon to cancel the hot swap policy, and set the auto extract timeout for the resource. Now there is a race condition. Shelf manager responds to which openhpid first? Both active and standby plm daemons need to call saHpiHotSwapPolicyCancel and saHpiAutoExtractTimeoutSet, to make sure that both openhpid on the active and standby controllers have the same auto extract policy. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/hpi_intf/plms_hsm.c | 204 +++++++--------------- osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/plms_amf.c | 19 +-- 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 152 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1. Attempt to extract a blade, that should reject the extraction because 1 or more services cannot be moved Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- 1. The extraction should always be denied. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
