ACK
On 10/18/2016 03:54 PM, Lennart Lund wrote: > Summary: smf: Admin owner set needed if new handles has been created > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2122 > Peer Reviewer(s): rafael.odza...@ericsson.com > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 5.1 and devel > Development branch: > > -------------------------------- > 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 79ffb701265c7ebea1fc48d04679e19c311f7e12 > Author: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:41:52 +0200 > > smf: Admin owner set needed if new handles has been created [#2122] > > If not the same handles are used for creating and deleting a node group > (e.g. bad handle error) saImmOmAdminOwnerSet must be used to connect the > node group with the new admin owner > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 103 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh | 5 ++- > 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Create a node group named as the temporary node groug used by lock handling > before running a single step campaign with nodes as deactivation/activation > units. > > Command for creating the node group: > immcfg -c SaAmfNodeGroup -a saAmfNGAdminState=2 -a > saAmfNGNodeList='safAmfNode=PL-3,safAmfCluster=myAmfCluster' > safAmfNodeGroup=smfLockAdmNg1,safAmfCluster=myAmfCluster > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > With patch the campaign shall complete > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Push end of week after ack from reviwer > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
