Hi Anders, Ack with comments
Have tested with legacy test PASS. Comments: Instead of logging SaAisErrorT as a number (%u) it could be logged using saf_error() Note: Will not apply on top of the resilience patch. After discussion with Anders the resilience patch will be pushed before this patc ant this patch will be adjusted accordingly. It is also suggested that the patch for originating node (#1480) is pushed after this patch. This may require some adjustments of the #1480 patch. Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Widell > Sent: den 29 februari 2016 16:00 > To: Lennart Lund > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: Support AMF configurations > containing more than two OpenSAF 2N SUs [#79] > > Summary: log: Support AMF configurations containing more than two > OpenSAF 2N SUs [#79] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 79 > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart > 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 y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 5bd241361225c302c8329c7aee5b60c7e04116a2 > Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:56:45 +0100 > > log: Support AMF configurations containing more than two > OpenSAF 2N SUs > [#79] > > Add support for configuring the system with more than two > OpenSAF 2N SUs. In > particular, this means that all OpenSAF directors must support > starting up > and running without (initially) getting any assignment from > AMF. Locking of > an OpenSAF 2N SU is currently not supported on a system > configured with more > than two OpenSAF 2N SUs. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs.h | 11 +++++++-- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_amf.cc | 20 +++++++++--------- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_cb.h | 2 +- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.cc | 27 +++++++++++++++++++------ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.cc | 129 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_main.cc | 159 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.cc | 12 +++++----- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.h | 7 ++++- > osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mds.cc | 6 ++-- > 9 files changed, 223 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > Configure the system with more than two controller nodes. The system > should work > as normal. > > Note: you need all the patches for ticket [#79] in order to run the system > with > more than two controller nodes. However, it should also be possible to apply > the > patches for just one service and test legacy functionality (i.e. run > regression > tests). > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > > The system should work both when configured with two system controllers > (and > possibly some payload nodes), as well as with a configuration where all > nodes > are configured as controller nodes. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from 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=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
