Summary: amfd: avoid active SI failover during su or node failover recovery, N-WAY model[#1944] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1944 Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): ALL 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 32afe4c02b285d1eac1ac70bae71fe0c3fd0eb60 Author: [email protected] Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:21:56 +0530 amfd: avoid active SI failover during su or node failover recovery, N-WAY model[#1944] AMF make SI active in two SUs when a component faults with su-failover recovery in removal callback during lock operation on SU. In As a part of lock operation when quiesced assignment gets successful for both SI1 and SI2 in the locked SU1, AMFD makes SU2 active for both the SIs and sends SU level delete to SU1. Comp1 in SU1 faults with su-failover recovery while handling CSI Remove callback. AMFD makes SU3 active for both SIs as part of recovery. Since SU2 was already made active after successful quiesced assignments, AMFD should not perform failover of SI1 and SI2 to SU3. Patch avoids failover if SI is already active in some other healthy SU. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg_nway_fsm.cc | 10 ++++++++++ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/si.cc | 8 ++++++-- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Tested as per ticket description. Also tested lock operation on Node group (it covers node). Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Two active SUs for same SI not observed. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from any reviewer. 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
