Hi zoran, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack, with the following comments, no need to send for another review.
skip sending adminoperation for the below flags also. OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_ON OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_OFF /Neel. On Tuesday 29 December 2015 06:28 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Summary: imm: skip sending admin ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode [#1652] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1652 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Hung > Pull request to: Zoran > Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.6.x, opensaf-4.7.x, default(5.0) > Development branch: default(5.0) > > -------------------------------- > 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 8c9c5a4632ec0bca44dd79c2f01abcface87a4e2 > Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:24:42 +0100 > > imm: skip sending admin ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode [#1652] > > When PBE is running in 1safe2PBE mode, syncing admin op to the second > PBE > will be skipped. Adding OPENSAF_IMM_FLAG_2PBE1_ALLOW check to > OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_CLASS_CREATE, OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_CLASS_DELETE and > OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_UPDATE_EPOCH will skip sending unnecessary admin op to > slave > PBE. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immpbed/immpbe_daemon.cc | 19 +++++++++++++++---- > 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > When testing the patch in 1safe2PBE mode, check that messages related to 2PBE > in syslog are not repeated due to absence on the second PBE. > Examples of repeated messages have been given in the ticket > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Hung and Neelakanta > > > 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
