Hi Mahesh, I agree that this implementation specific. Maybe it is actually not a defect.
But I think that it can be seen as an improvement for clarity and convenience in debugging. Ex: root@PL-5:~# ll /run/shm total 700 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 120 Oct 13 15:13 ./ drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 440 Oct 13 15:14 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 704008 Oct 13 15:12 opensaf_CPND_CHECKPOINT_INFO_132367 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:13 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp__132367_1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:13 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp__132367_2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:13 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp__132367_3 root@PL-5:~# In this case, we have to interpret the ckpt_id to find which replica file belong to which checkpoint. With the fix, it will be more easier to find it directly. root@PL-5:~# ll /run/shm/ total 700 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 120 Oct 13 15:09 ./ drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 440 Oct 13 15:09 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 704008 Oct 13 15:08 opensaf_CPND_CHECKPOINT_INFO_132367 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:09 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp_1_132367_1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:09 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp_2_132367_2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 15:09 opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp_3_132367_3 Best regards, Nhat Pham -----Original Message----- From: A V Mahesh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:49 PM To: Nhat Pham <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: The checkpoint name in the replica file name lacks last character [#1539] Hi Nhat Pham, Then the patch is not required . The skip is intentional. You misinterpreted it , immfind should show only checkpointName what you configured at the time of " saCkptCheckpointOpen(ckptHandle, &checkpointName, ............). /dev/shm/ content is implementation specific ( some other SAF HA implementation can use Some Datta base , how he stores in DB is implementation specific) We should show only what application is configured. -AVM On 10/13/2015 12:56 PM, Nhat Pham wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > Yes, I mean so. As describing in the ticket, the checkpoint name in > the replica file name is not correct. > > root@PL-3:~# immfind | grep safCkpt=test_cp > safCkpt=test_cp_1 > safReplica=safNode=PL-3\,safCluster=myClmCluster,safCkpt=test_cp_1 > safReplica=safNode=SC-1\,safCluster=myClmCluster,safCkpt=test_cp_1 > safReplica=safNode=SC-2\,safCluster=myClmCluster,safCkpt=test_cp_1 > root@PL-3:~# ls -l /run/shm/ > total 692 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 704008 Oct 13 10:32 > opensaf_CPND_CHECKPOINT_INFO_131855 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4968 Oct 13 10:33 > opensaf_safCkpt=test_cp__131855_1 > > Best regards, > Nhat Pham > > -----Original Message----- > From: A V Mahesh [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:17 PM > To: Nhat Pham <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: The checkpoint > name in the replica file name lacks last character [#1539] > > Hi Nhat Pham, > > Do you mean ls /dev/shm & immfind should be the same ? > > -AVM > > On 10/13/2015 10:20 AM, Nhat Pham wrote: >> Summary: cpsv: The checkpoint name in the replica file name lacks >> last character Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1539 Peer Reviewer(s): >> [email protected] Pull request to: [email protected] >> Affected branch(es): 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 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 n >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset fe4f09851f99541077f9fcb4ea90462ea3c78df0 >> Author: Nhat Pham <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:41:04 +0700 >> >> cpsv: The checkpoint name in the replica file name lacks last > character >> [#1539] >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_proc.c | 4 +++- >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> - Create a checkpoint >> - immfind <ckpt name> >> - ls -l /run/shm >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> - The checkpoint name in immfind and ls command should be same >> >> >> 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
