ack for code review. Thanks, Minh On 12/09/16 12:41, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote: > Summary: ntf: cluster rebooted with ntfd crashed on both controllers [#2006] > V2 > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2006 > Peer Reviewer(s): NTF maintainers > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es): all > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset b3bb5c8b12af0efb0d3379249c74e27b9aaf8df8 > Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:27:57 +0700 > > ntf: cluster rebooted with ntfd crashed on both controllers [#2006] > > In AIS, it states "additionalText length must be consistent with > lengthAdditionalText" But NTFA did not check this. So, when data is > passing > to LOGA, ntfsv got invalid param. > > This patch adds the check. Also fix few error in ntftest - used > `sizeof` to > calculate the string length instead of `strlen`. > > Besides, adding an early check to avoid allocating a too long > `additionalText`. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_api.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > osaf/libs/common/ntfsv/include/ntfsv_msg.h | 1 - > osaf/libs/common/ntfsv/ntfsv_mem.c | 10 +++++++++- > osaf/services/saf/ntfsv/ntfs/NtfLogger.cc | 2 +- > tests/ntfsv/tet_ntf_common.c | 5 ++--- > tests/ntfsv/tet_saNtfNotificationSend.c | 92 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Run new added test case. ntftest 8 13 > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > All test PASS > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Get acks from peer 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. > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
