Hi Giang Do I have some comments:
1. Your list is a unnecessarily complicated a simpler list handling can be used also search code is duplicated. Can be found in both search function and remove function. 2. I saw that you have used lga_ as prefix for the list handling functions. This is not correct. The prefixes used have a specific meaning. lga_ Is used for files and external functions used with the log agent lgs_ Is used for files and external functions used with the log server If the log service instead of a server should have a director and a node director the corresponding prefixes would have been: lgd_ For director lgnd_ For node director 3. There is another list which seems to be used for a similar purpose in standby state. To avoid redundant code this list should be replaced with the new list handling. This will remove the incorrectly used global variables in the lgs_cb structure, duplicated inline list handling code and also implement a better list handling that can be unit tested. Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: giang do [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 26 oktober 2015 09:59 > To: [email protected]; Vu Minh Nguyen; Lennart Lund > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: issue with priority of > messages adding to mailbox in the server [#1396] > > Summary: 1396 log: issue with priority of messages adding to mailbox in the > server [#1396] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1396 > Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected] > Pull request to: Lennart > Affected branch(es): 5.0 > 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 n > OpenSAF services y > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset 7e1d429bd182875b26badad3b58cf3fb0f380e65 > Author: giang do<[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:03:25 +0700 > > log: issue with priority of messages adding to mailbox in the > server [#1396] > > Sometimes, Log service can handle LGSV_INITIALIZE_REQ > before handle > LGSV_LGS_EVT_LGA_DOWN, although > LGSV_LGS_EVT_LGA_DOWN was sent first. > > When Log service handle down message later, it will destroy > every log agents > (include new created log agent). From now, handle of this log > agent in log > user is not valid anymore. > > Solution: Log service need to prevent log user create new log > agent when Log > service have not handled down message completely. Just tell > user try again. > > > Added Files: > ------------ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mdsdown.c > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mdsdown.h > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/Makefile.am | 3 ++- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mds.c | 7 +++++++ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mdsdown.c | 133 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mdsdown.h | 56 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/logsv/tet_saLogInitialize.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 238 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > logtest > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > all testcases passed > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Acked from peer reviewers > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > 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
