Summary: amfd: fix assignment of standby HA state without active HA state, NPM model [#1562] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1562 Peer Reviewer(s): AMF contributors Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): ALL 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 y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 99c59592d878031252d299e5dadeb6ec7b0fb868 Author: [email protected] Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:41:32 +0530 amfd: fix assignment of standby HA state without active HA state, NPM model [#1562] When OpenSAF is stopped on one node hosting two application SUs, standby assignments are given for SIs active on the stopped node. In the reported problem, stopped node consists of active and standby SUs for two SIs. When this node is stopped, AMFD tries to failover the SUs. For the active SU it deletes the SUSI for both SIs. Since failover of this SU is not possible as standby assignment also resides (susi to be deleted) on the stopped node only, AMFD runs new assignment logic. Since no SU is available for active assignment for any SI, AMFD tries for fresh standby assignments. In the logic of assigning standby HA state, AMFD checks if active assignments are there by checking list_of_susi and also check if standby assignment is present. Here it must be noted that AMFD checks only list_of_susi and not the HA state and it assumes that since list_of_susi is not null it means active assignment are there. In the reported problem since both active and standby assignments resides on the stopped node, AMFD gets list_of_susi non-null (contains susi for standby HA state which will be deleted in failover logic of node). Since only one susi(assuming it active) is present AMFD goes for standby assignments. Patch ensures that before assignning fresh standby HA state, valid active assignment for the SI must be verified because new assignment logic is also invoked during recovery phase. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/si.h | 1 + osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg_npm_fsm.cc | 7 +++++-- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/si.cc | 16 +++++++++++++++- 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Reporoduced and tested with attached configuration in the ticket. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- No standby assignments without active assignments and stable SG. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from any reviewer. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
