Summary: clmd: don't always checkpoint nodes in plm readiness callback Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1416 Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi Pull request to: Mathi Affected branch(es): default, 4.6, 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 7105a8f6ef5c0ba8928b66388058a852bb6e874c Author: Alex Jones <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:38:59 -0400 clmd: don't always checkpoint nodes in plm readiness callback completed state [#1416] At active controller switchover, the newly active sends node down events for nodes that are not down. There is a race condition on the standby between receiving the node_down checkpoint message, which removes the node from the node_id database; and receiving a checkpoint from PLM readiness callback COMPLETED state. This can cause an entry to be created on the node down list, and never removed. Don't checkpoint nodes in PLM readiness callback, if node->nodeup == 0 and state is COMPLETED. In this case we know a node down checkpoint message has been sent which removes the node from the node_id db on the standby. Checkpointing here can readd it, which we don't want to do. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_plm.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1. 3 or more nodes in the cluster, all with EEs 2. reboot one or more of the payloads, wait for them to come back up 3. perform si-swap of controller Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- 1. clm should not issue node down events for the nodes that were rebooted Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
