Hi, > isRestartError() function has one if statement and it is used in another very > small function. Yes, but it makes the code where it is used much easier to read. It is not easy to see what the if statement do but the usage of the isRestartError() function makes it clear. I will therefore keep the function.
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafael Odzakow > Sent: den 29 juni 2016 10:28 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; > reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf: Lock nodes in parallel > [#1634] > > ACK, > > isRestartError() function has one if statement and it is used in another very > small function. > > > > On 06/17/2016 05:08 PM, Lennart Lund wrote: > > Summary: smf: Lock nodes in parallel > > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1634 > > Peer Reviewer(s): reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com, > rafael.odza...@ericsson.com > > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > > Affected branch(es): devel > > 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 155aaab4571280481cb1333d3e63cc8175a5f735 > > Author: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:18:51 +0200 > > > > smf: Lock nodes in parallel [#1634] > > > > A new SetAdminState class for handling admin operation on nodes, > SUs and > > components is created This class replaces the callAdminOperation() > method in > > the SmfUpgradeStep class It operates on the list of units created for > the > > step. Admin of SUs and components is handled serial as before but > nodes are > > handled in parallel via node groups > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 991 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++---------- > > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh | 96 +++++++- > > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUtils.cc | 2 + > > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_campaign_oi.cc | 2 +- > > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_evt.c | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 949 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > For testing parallel lock, lock-in, unlock-in and unlock (nodes): > > Run a single step campaign with nodes as activation/deactivation units > > > > For testing above sequence with SUs (will be handled in series as before): > > Run a single step campaign with SUs as activation/deactivation units > > > > Suggest test of a mix of nodes and SUs. Nodes will be handled in parallel > and SUs in series: > > Run a single step campaign with nodes and SUs as activation/deactivation > units > > > > For testing restart of components: > > Run a single steprolling campaign with components as > activation/deactivation units > > > > Steps: > > Build an UML cluster and install the demo app > >> build_uml > >> env APPCONFIG=AppConfig-nwayactive.xml ./build_uml install_testprog > > On node > > Unlock demo app for all SUs > > # amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo2 > > # amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo2 > > . > > . > > . > > > > Install and execute campaign > > Suggest testing with smfKeepDuState on/off > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > Same as if testing without patch > > Lock sequence test for nodes should be faster with patch > > > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack by 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
