Summary: amfd: act amfd allows cold sync after it reads config [#1603]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1603
Peer Reviewer(s): Praveen, Hans N
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): All
Development branch: Default

--------------------------------
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 eae2dc8a42ba5a7d31b2e900cceba978f3333878
Author: Nagendra Kumar<[email protected]>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:40 +0530

        amfd: act amfd allows cold sync after it reads config [#1603] When cold 
sync
        req reaches Act Amfd and when its state is in AVD_CFG_DONE, it returns
        NCSCC_RC_FAILURE to Mbcsv. Mbcsv doesn't respond back to its Standby 
peer
        that Cold sync has failed. Act Mbcsv peer waits till Cold sync timer
        NCS_MBCSV_TMR_SEND_COLD_SYNC_PERIOD (9 Secs). After this timer expires,
        Standby Mbcsv peer resends the request, this time Act Amfd is in
        AVD_INIT_DONE and hence Cold sync starts. This is the reason for 9 
Seconds
        delay reported in the ticket.

        Amfd can start Cold sync even it has read the configuration and it need 
not
        wait the Act controller to come up fully. That means, Amfd need not wait
        till m/w susi is assigned on Act controller. Because, for Standby SUSI 
to
        get assigned, Amfd should be in AVD_INIT_DONE, so this avoids, Standby
        Controller taking Act role (2N M/w susi). So, the fix paces up Cold 
sync to
        start.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/chkop.cc |  2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
Start both controller at the same time.

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
The Standby controller should come up without 9 sec delay.

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from peer reviews.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go from Idea to Many App Stores Faster with Intel(R) XDK
Give your users amazing mobile app experiences with Intel(R) XDK.
Use one codebase in this all-in-one HTML5 development environment.
Design, debug & build mobile apps & 2D/3D high-impact games for multiple OSs.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=254741551&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to