Summary: plm: handle isolation failures Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1751 Peer Reviewer(s): mathi Pull request to: mathi Affected branch(es): default, 5.0, 4.7, 4.6 Development branch:
-------------------------------- 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 a96a313a9fe561021218b3f960d32ad08d85b0a9 Author: Alex Jones <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:51:18 -0400 plm: handle isolation failures [#1751] saPlmEntityReadinessImpact can succeed even though the entity was never put into DISABLED state. This can happen in an ATCA chassis where the shelf manager will shut down a FRU that has a non-recoverable temperature sensor assertion (see PICMG 3.0 spec). In this case, PLM will receive an "extraction pending" message from HPI (the shelf manager shutting the blade down.) If saPlmEntityReadinessImpact is called now, the isolation will fail because the FRU has already started deactivating. SA_AIS_OK is returned by saPlmEntityReadinessImpact in this case. plms_ent_isolation should return TRY_AGAIN if it failed to isolate the entity. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/plms_utils.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------ 1 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1) Initiate an "extraction pending" from the shelf manager for an HE 2) call saPlmEntityReadinessImpact for that HE with RI_FAILURE while the extraction is ongoing Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- 1) saPlmEntityReadinessImpact should return TRY_AGAIN, and the entity should not be isolated 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
