Hi Mahesh I have looked at the test logs in the log code and I have not seen any surprises. Since this will work with both TIPC and TCP it will be form the log perspective a good solution. However I have not been able to build and test, a patch (2 of 3) seems to be missing and it's not possible to build.
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 5 februari 2016 07:26 > To: Lennart Lund; Beatriz Brandao; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [PATCH 0 of 3] Review Request for MDS: Include node name as a > part of Transport callback_info events [#1522] > > 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
