Summary: amf: fix activeCompName in csiStateDescriptor used in CSI SET cbk 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2021 
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs 
Affected branch(es): default and 5.1 
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 12202143a07cbb1a46ba48c8bbb99fae2c7f8b39
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:08:37 +0530

        amf: fix activeCompName in csiStateDescriptor used in CSI SET cbk 

        In the reported problem, active compname is improperly as \'sa\' in CSI 
        callback for HA state.

        After setting activeCompName in standby descriptor, AMFND is wrongly 
        osaf_extended_name_clear() for active descriptor. Since
        SaAmfCSIStateDescriptorT is a union, it clears the filled value. Along 
        the above problems there are other minor problems like:
        -AMFND is copying activecompName using osaf_extended_name_alloc() in 
        message, only when it is an extended name. osaf_extended_name_alloc() 
        be done irrespective of short or long dn.
        -Agent should perform validation check on dn based on HA state of the 
        callback, as activecompname is not populated for all the HA states.
        -When above problems are fixed, one more problem pops up: a standby 
        gets its own name in activeCompName in CSI set callback for standby. 
        is a minor regression at AMFD.

        Patch fixes all these problems.

Complete diffstat:
 osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/ |  28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
 osaf/libs/common/amf/n2avamsg.c      |  14 ++++++--------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/   |   2 +-
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/  |   1 -
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:
Tested for 2N model.

Testing, Expected Results:
Got correct name in CSI set callback.

Conditions of Submission:
Ack before 5.1RC2.

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.

Opensaf-devel mailing list

Reply via email to