Hi Lennart, Thanks for your comment. I will add the info when sending the patch for pushing.
Regards, Vu. >-----Original Message----- >From: Lennart Lund [mailto:lennart.l...@ericsson.com] >Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 7:18 PM >To: Vu Minh Nguyen; mathi.naic...@oracle.com >Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >Subject: RE: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: log agent library is not >backward compatible [#1686] > >Hi Vu > >Ack with comment. > >Comment: >It is not easy to understand what this fix is doing. I think a more descriptive >comment could be a great help for a future maintainer. This comment could be >in one place and describe why this is needed and how this solves the problem >for both logFileName and logFilePathName. > >Thanks >Lennart > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vu Minh Nguyen [mailto:vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au] >> Sent: den 4 mars 2016 04:18 >> To: Lennart Lund; mathi.naic...@oracle.com >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: log agent library is not >> backward compatible [#1686] >> >> Summary: log: log agent library is not backward compatible [#1686] >> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1686 >> Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mathi >> Pull request to: Lennart >> Affected branch(es): 5.0 >> Development branch: 5.0 >> >> -------------------------------- >> 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): >> --------------------------------------------- >> <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> >> >> changeset 3664ee54adf7f3c86eb830862338c873fabe9a8c >> Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> >> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:07:20 +0700 >> >> log: log agent library is not backward compatible [#1686] >> >> The log agent on defaul branch (5.0) was not backward >> compatible with the >> old OpenSAF versions. >> >> This fix does an workaround to make it work. >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/lga/lga_mds.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> Bring one active node up with OpenSAF 4.7, then >> bring standby node up with OpenSAF 5.0. >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> The standby node is up succesfully. >> >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> Get ack from peer reviewers. >> >> >> Arch Built Started Linux distro >> ------------------------------------------- >> mips n n >> mips64 n n >> x86 n n >> x86_64 n n >> 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://makebettercode.com/inteldaal-eval _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
