Hi, Even it can not be seen as an improvement.
SAF application should work independent of Implementations. -AVM On 10/13/2015 1:56 PM, Nhat Pham wrote: > 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
