Summary: AMFD: Make active/standby amfd becomes early implementer/applier [#2112] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2112 Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 5.1, default 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 e9327c5a7f036db845da64e1fbc02dd9ecdce0ad Author: minh-chau <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:53:36 +1100 AMFD: Make active/standby amfd becomes early implementer/applier [#2112] After headless, for some reasons the SU read from IMM does not gaurantee to be the same order as they were added via ccb. That will not maintain the mapping between node and su, which later would cause a crash of amfnd After headless, saAmfSUHostedByNode is read empty so map_su_to_node() does re-mapping which is a wrong one, and su_add_to_model() also updated this wrong mapping to IMM. The only right mapping exists in the sync information where amfd retrieves from avd_susi_recreate(). But this is also where the problem comes, because payload will reuse the order before headless and that possibly cause a node mapped to two different SU(s). Patch makes active/standby amfd becoming early implementer/applier so that saAmfSUHostedByNode is read non-empty, and there will not be a re-map due to blank saAmfSUHostedByNode inside function map_su_to_node(). Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/role.cc | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Repeat the test reported in ticket #2112 Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- No duplicate mapping SU, no amfnd coredump Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- ack from reviewers 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
