Summary: amfd: do not send duplicate removal of assignment, 2N model [#1772]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1772
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): ALL
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
--------------------------------
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 d796d3c0c2ff073a6a98e46eb31fcf4a1d0c5349
Author: praveen.malv...@oracle.com
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 21:54:01 +0530
amfd: do not send duplicate removal of assignment, 2N model [#1772]
In the reported problem, AMFND asserted when SU was unlocked.
For complete analysis, please refer ticket. In short, when AMFND was
removing the assignments, it gets a duplicate removal of assignment for
the
same SU because of reboot of node hosting the active su. This duplicate
message gets buffered and is picked up when ongoing removal completes.
After
completion of ongoing removal of assignment, AMFND picks buffered
assignment
and sets assignment related flags. Since SUSIs were deleted during
previos
removal, no callbacks processing and response to AMFD is done for it.
During
response to AMFD, AMFND resets all assignment related flags and it
remained
undone for buffered assignments. Later on when SU was unlocked and fresh
assignments were given to it. After completion of callback when AMFND
tries
to respond to AMFND expects valid SI pointer for fresh assignment and
checks
it through a assert statement. Here AMFND asserts because of side
effects of
assignment related flags being set.
Patch fixes the problem by avoiding sending duplicate removal of
assignments
to AMFND.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg_2n_fsm.cc | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Tested the reported case.
Will test for quiesced case also.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Reported case passed
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
