Hi Neel

A document ticket is created see [#2017] and document update is ongoing

Thanks
Lennart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: den 8 september 2016 14:30
> To: Rafael Odzakow <[email protected]>; Lennart Lund
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for Review Request for smfd:
> Merge rolling to singlestep procedures for several nodes [#1685]
> 
> Hi Rafel,
> 
> Reviewed and tested the patch.
> Ack with the following comments.
> 
> comments:
> 
> 1.  The bt  has to be corrected:
> 
> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> #0  0x00000000004293c9 in SmfUpgradeCampaign::execute() () at
> SmfUpgradeCampaign.cc:802
> 802     SmfUpgradeCampaign.cc: No such file or directory.
> 
> 2.
> 
> when controller nodes given to nodesForSingleStep needs to be returned
> with error
> 
> 3.
> The usage of this functionality must be documented in SMF_PR
> 
> Thanks,
> Neel.
> 
> On 2016/09/05 01:24 PM, Rafael Odzakow wrote:
> > Summary: Merge rolling to singlestep procedures for several nodes
> > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1685
> > Peer Reviewer(s): lennart, reddy
> > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
> > Affected branch(es): <<LIST ALL AFFECTED BRANCH(ES)>>
> > 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            n
> >   OpenSAF services        y
> >   Core libraries          n
> >   Samples                 n
> >   Tests                   n
> >   Other                   n
> >
> >
> > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >   Added SI-SWAP and protection for openSafSmfExecControl attribute in
> SmfConfig.
> >
> >   Protection is added to keep backward compatibility while not allowing
> changes
> >   to happen during upgrade to the Execution Control DN. As a bonus some
> old code
> >   was possible to remove.
> >
> > changeset 3850c8ad75dcb065cb6eddf94f50958fcce63e60
> > Author:     Rafael Odzakow <[email protected]>
> > Date:       Mon, 05 Sep 2016 09:47:53 +0200
> >
> >     smfd: Merge rolling to singlestep procedures for several nodes
> [#1685]
> >
> > Enables the balanced mode feature. This mode changes the execution
> > of rolling procedures to be merged into one or several single steps that are
> > spread out across the cluster nodes. This feature is used to give a faster
> > upgrade time compared to rolling one node at a time, possibly several
> times
> > for each node. By splittting the procedures it into several single steps
> > across the nodes a total service outage can be avoided.
> >
> > Added Files:
> > ------------
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControl.cc
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControl.h
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControlHdl.cc
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControlHdl.h
> >
> >
> > Complete diffstat:
> > ------------------
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/config/smfsv_classes.xml    |  1084
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/Makefile.am            |     8 +-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampState.cc        |   151 
> > ++++------------
> --------
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaign.cc         |    77 +++++++-----
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaign.hh         |     1 +
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControl.cc      |   363
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControl.h       |    59 +++++++++
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControlHdl.cc   |   506
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfExecControlHdl.h    |   126
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfProcState.cc        |    28 ++++-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeCampaign.cc  |    39 ++++--
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeCampaign.hh  |    35 ++---
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |    27 +++-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.hh |    18 ++-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc      |    49 ++++++++
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh      |    13 +-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd.h                 |     2 +-
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_campaign_oi.cc    |    32 -----
> >   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_cb.h              |     5 -
> >   19 files changed, 1842 insertions(+), 781 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > Testing Commands:
> > -----------------
> >
> >   For protection flag testing, try to modify the OpenSafSmfExecControl
> object in
> >   the campaignInit phase. If the flag is set to true this change will be 
> > ignored
> >   for the running campaign.
> >
> >   Campaign with rolling procedures is attached to the ticket. Run a campaign
> >   with rolling procedures on payloads and enable the balanced mode.
> Example
> >   configuration for balanced mode:
> >
> >   immcfg -c OpenSafSmfExecControl -a procExecMode=2
> openSafSmfExecControl=MergeCampToSS2o
> >   immcfg -a numberOfSingleSteps=2 -a nodesForSingleStep=PL-3 -a
> nodesForSingleStep=PL-4 openSafSmfExecControl=MergeCampToSS2
> >   immcfg -a
> openSafSmfExecControl=openSafSmfExecControl=MergeCampToSS2
> smfConfig=1,safApp=safSmfService
> >
> >   In this configuration we can expect to run one single step procedures on
> each of the payloads specified
> >
> > Testing, Expected Results:
> > --------------------------
> >   campaign should have executed all rolling steps as groups of single steps.
> >
> >
> > 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      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.
> >


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to