Summary: cpd: To reduce updating time out [#1788] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1788 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected]; [email protected] Pull request to: [email protected] 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 7f2b15e81ae98cae85a40d7cf0674b4faa430506 Author: Nhat Pham <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 08:56:54 +0700 cpd: To reduce updating time out [#1788] Problem: -------- Application gets fault code SA_AIS_ERR_NOT_EXIST in case it accesses the checkpoint with saCkptCheckpointWrite() when SCs are up after headless state. The problem happens due to combination of 2 conditions: 1. The process ID on SC-2 before headless and after headless are same. This leads their MDS destination are same. (This rarely happens) 2. Accessing checkpoint happens during updating checkpoint period after headless state (i.e the active replica hasn't been updated yet. After this period checkpoint can be accessed normally) Solution: --------- The problem happens temporarily during updating period. The solution is to reduce the updating time out. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpd_proc.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- ckpttest Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- All test cases pass. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- - 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
