Summary:MDS: Include node name as a part of Transport callback_info events [#1522] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1522 Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart /Beatriz /Mathi /Ramesh Pull request to: avm Affected branch(es): default 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): --------------------------------------------- changeset 690a41fd9dae68acda8b692f47455a879703b941 Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:43:56 +0530 MDS:TIPC include node name as a part of callback_info events [#1522] This patch enhences the Opensaf Transport provides Node Name of the sender as part of ncsmds_callback_info (NCSMDS_CALLBACK_INFO). This enhences implemented for both TCP & TIPC Transport. In addtional to TIPC list DEC_INFO, RECEIVE_INFO & DIRECT_RECEIVE, TCP Transport provides Node Name of the sender as part of NODE_EVENT event also. Patch supports in-serrvice upgrade both TCP & TIPC Transport (NOT YET TESTED). TIPC MDS transport will provide part of ncsmds_callback_info for follwing events : - MDS_CALLBACK_DEC_INFO - MDS_CALLBACK_RECEIVE_INFO - MDS_CALLBACK_DIRECT_RECEIVE_INFO Example : Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_dec() node_name : SC-1 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_rcv() node_name : SC-1 evt.type :4 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_dec() node_name : SC-2 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_rcv() node_name : SC-2 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info changeset 1137585f6e9af2c3b4e66363d94454dcb5133895 Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:46:34 +0530 MDS:TCP include node name as a part of callback_info events [#1522] This patch enhancement the Opensaf Transport provides Node Name of the sender as part of ncsmds_callback_info (NCSMDS_CALLBACK_INFO). This enhancement is implemented for both TCP & TIPC Transport. In additional to TIPC Transport list DEC_INFO, RECEIVE_INFO & DIRECT_RECEIVE, TCP Transport provides Node Name of the sender as part of NODE_EVENT event also. Patch supports in-serrvice upgrade both TCP & TIPC Transport (NOT YET TESTED). TCP MDS transport will provide part of ncsmds_callback_info for following events : - MDS_CALLBACK_NODE_EVENT_INFO - MDS_CALLBACK_DEC_INFO - MDS_CALLBACK_RECEIVE_INFO - MDS_CALLBACK_DIRECT_RECEIVE_INFO Example : Feb 5 11:41:02 SC-2 osafclmd[16086]: TEST LGS:node_name : SC-1 NCSMDS_NODE_UP ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:02 SC-2 osafclmd[16086]: TEST LGS:node_name : SC-2 NCSMDS_NODE_UP ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_dec() node_name : SC-1 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_rcv() node_name : SC-1 evt.type :4 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_dec() node_name : SC-2 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info Feb 5 11:41:06 SC-1 osaflogd[21413]: LGS: mds_rcv() node_name : SC-2 evt.type :0 from ncsmds_callback_info changeset 8b761c82746a547b7cd60cf8e98e983172975a74 Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:49:30 +0530 MDS: use case examples of node_name from NCSMDS_CALLBACK_INFO [#1522] Example node_name from ncsmds_callback_info (NCSMDS_CALLBACK_INFO) use case this will not be committed , just to show use case. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/core/include/mds_papi.h | 8 +++++++- osaf/libs/core/mds/include/mds_core.h | 4 +++- osaf/libs/core/mds/include/mds_dt.h | 5 +++-- osaf/libs/core/mds/include/mds_dt2c.h | 6 ++++-- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_c_api.c | 14 +++++++++----- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_c_sndrcv.c | 5 +++++ osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_dt_common.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_dt_trans.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------- osaf/libs/core/mds/mds_main.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/dtm/dtm_intra.c | 8 ++++---- osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/dtm/dtm_intra_svc.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/dtm/dtm_node.c | 4 ++-- osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/include/dtm_cb.h | 5 ++--- osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/include/dtm_intra.h | 2 +- osaf/services/infrastructure/dtms/include/dtm_intra_disc.h | 5 +++-- osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_mds.c | 1 + osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mds.cc | 4 ++-- 18 files changed, 290 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Patch 4 of 4 provided use case. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> 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=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
