Ack.
In this V2, only default branch is mentioned in review report.
In V1, all branches were mentioned in review report.
Any reason for this change?
Thanks,
Praveen
On 02-May-16 11:37 PM, Alex Jones wrote:
> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc | 4 ++--
> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>
> When saAmfCSIDependencies is used to order CSIs, STANDBY assignment is done in
> reverse order from ACTIVE assignment.
>
> The code interprets the AMF B.04.01 spec to only order ACTIVE assignment, and
> all
> other assignments are done in reverse order.
>
> STANDBY assignment should be done based on rank (saAmfCSIDependencies) in the
> same
> order as ACTIVE assignment.
>
> diff --git a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc
> b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc
> --- a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc
> +++ b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc
> @@ -1608,7 +1608,7 @@ uint32_t avnd_comp_csi_assign_done(AVND_
> */
> if (csi) {
> if (all_csis_at_rank_assigned(csi->si, csi->rank)) {
> - uint32_t rank = (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE ==
> csi->si->curr_state) ?
> + uint32_t rank = (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE ==
> csi->si->curr_state || SA_AMF_HA_STANDBY == csi->si->curr_state) ?
> csi->rank + 1 : csi->rank - 1 ;
>
> if (find_unassigned_csi_at_rank(csi->si, rank) !=
> nullptr) {
> @@ -1634,7 +1634,7 @@ uint32_t avnd_comp_csi_assign_done(AVND_
> curr_csi =
> m_AVND_CSI_REC_FROM_COMP_DLL_NODE_GET(m_NCS_DBLIST_FIND_FIRST(&comp->csi_list));
>
> if (all_csis_at_rank_assigned(curr_csi->si, curr_csi->rank)) {
> - uint32_t rank = (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE ==
> curr_csi->si->curr_state) ?
> + uint32_t rank = (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE ==
> curr_csi->si->curr_state || SA_AMF_HA_STANDBY == curr_csi->si->curr_state) ?
> curr_csi->rank + 1 : curr_csi->rank - 1 ;
>
> if (find_unassigned_csi_at_rank(curr_csi->si, rank) !=
> nullptr) {
> diff --git a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc
> b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc
> --- a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc
> +++ b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc
> @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ static uint32_t assign_si_to_su(const AV
> if (m_AVND_SU_IS_PREINSTANTIABLE(su)) {
> uint32_t rank;
>
> - if (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE == si->curr_state) {
> + if (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE == si->curr_state || SA_AMF_HA_STANDBY ==
> si->curr_state) {
> if (single_csi) {
> for (curr_csi = (AVND_COMP_CSI_REC
> *)m_NCS_DBLIST_FIND_FIRST(&si->csi_list),
> rank = curr_csi->rank;
> @@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ uint32_t avnd_su_si_assign(AVND_CB *cb,
> for (curr_si = (AVND_SU_SI_REC
> *)m_NCS_DBLIST_FIND_FIRST(&su->si_list);
> curr_si != nullptr;
> curr_si = (AVND_SU_SI_REC
> *)m_NCS_DBLIST_FIND_NEXT(&curr_si->su_dll_node)) {
> - if (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE == curr_si->curr_state) {
> + if (SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE == curr_si->curr_state ||
> SA_AMF_HA_STANDBY == curr_si->curr_state) {
> for (curr_csi = (AVND_COMP_CSI_REC
> *)m_NCS_DBLIST_FIND_FIRST(&curr_si->csi_list),
> rank = curr_csi->rank;
> (curr_csi != nullptr) &&
> (curr_csi->rank == rank);
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
