Summary: amfd: do not send duplicate removal of assignment, N-Way model [#2022] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2022 
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs 
Affected branch(es): 5.1 and default. 
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        n
 Core libraries          n
 Samples                 n
 Tests                   n
 Other                   n

Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
Issue may be applicable to other branches also.

changeset ff931e3b691b9b7cbf4f07843d307417ef2998b0
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:21:13 +0530

        amfd: do not send duplicate removal of assignment, N-Way model [#2022]

        AMFD asserted during lock operation on NG when its nodes are deplyed 
        N-WAY model application.

        When lock on NG operation is issued, AMFD sends quiesced state to 
active SIs
        in all the three SUs. Responses for SU2 and SU3 comes and AMFD sends SU
        level deletion to them. SU2 contains standby assignment of SI1 which is
        still getting quiesced in SU1. Now SU1 faults with su-failover recovery 
        SU2 is still not responded for deletion of assignments. AMFD tries to
        perform recovery of SU1 and tries to fail-over SI1 of SU1 but could not 
        any valid standby in any other SU. Since failover is not possible, AMFD
        tries to delete all standby assignments of SI1. AMFD tries to send 
        for SI1 to SU2 for which SU level deletion is already sent and it 

        Patch avoids sending duplicate deletion of assignments.

Complete diffstat:
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ |  6 ++++--
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:
Tested as per ticket description.

Testing, Expected Results:
No AMFD assertion.

Conditions of Submission:
Ack from anybody 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