Sorry I missed this reminder, will be review them this week.

Regards,
Ramesh.

----- Original Message -----
From: anders.wid...@ericsson.com
To: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:47:31 PM GMT +05:30 Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, 
New Delhi
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for base: Add osaf_timerfd_* 
utility functions [#777]

Hi Ramesh!

Did you get a chance to look at the review requests for ticket [#777] 
and [#1636] yet?

thanks,
Anders Widell

On 01/04/2016 10:18 AM, Anders Widell wrote:
> Hi Ramesh!
>
> Have you had time to look at this yet?
>
> regards,
> Anders Widell
>
> On 12/22/2015 05:03 PM, Anders Widell wrote:
>> Summary: base: Add osaf_timerfd_* utility functions [#777]
>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 777
>> Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh
>> Pull request to:
>> Affected branch(es): default(5.0)
>> 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          y
>>    Samples                 n
>>    Tests                   n
>>    Other                   n
>>
>>
>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> Note: I plan to contribute a unit test for these functions later.
>>
>> changeset 14cd662b79b79166632d17a52584d5cdc2776d25
>> Author:      Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com>
>> Date:        Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:52:51 +0100
>>
>>      base: Add osaf_timerfd_* utility functions [#777]
>>
>>      Add the utility functions osaf_timerfd_create(), osaf_timerfd_settime(),
>>      osaf_timerfd_gettime() and osaf_timerfd_close(), which have 
>> functionality
>>      corresponding to the Linux functions timerfd_create(), 
>> timerfd_settime(),
>>      timerfd_gettime() and close(), respectively.
>>
>>      The main reason for implementing these functions here is that they are
>>      missing in LSB (Linux Standard Base), which means that the use these 
>> Linux
>>      functions are currently prohibited in OpenSAF. As an additional 
>> benefit, the
>>      variants implemented here can never fail (they will abort() on failure),
>>      which means that the user does not have implement code for error 
>> handling.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> ------------------
>>    osaf/libs/core/common/Makefile.am            |    1 +
>>    osaf/libs/core/common/include/Makefile.am    |    1 +
>>    osaf/libs/core/common/include/osaf_timerfd.h |  131 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>    osaf/libs/core/common/osaf_timerfd.c         |  264 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>    4 files changed, 397 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -----------------
>> OpenSAF should build with an LSB compiler. The osaf_timerfd* functions should
>> work in the same way as the corresponding Linux functions (with the 
>> documented
>> restrictions).
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --------------------------
>> OpenSAF builds and starts successfully using an LSB compiler.
>>
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -------------------------
>> Ack from Ramesh
>>
>>
>> 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
>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Opensaf-devel mailing list
> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to