Summary: AMFD: Prioritize to failover absent assignment [#2161] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2161
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 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 a44320f76d739067f3fef688e5195e8fe13f6e8a Author: minh-chau <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:11:23 +1100 AMFD: Prioritize to failover absent assignment [#2161] In non-headless scenario, if there is a SU becoming OUT-OF-SERVICE due to node reboot, the situation should be handled in node_fail_su_oper, where the assignment of OUT-OF-SERVICE SU will be removed. In other words, the susi_success_su_oper is not supposed to handle an OUT-OF-SERVICE SU but still having assignment. When susi_success_su_oper() is called, SU having assignment must be IN-SERVICE. In scenario of headless recovery, which currently outweights pending assignment than absent assignment, that would cause susi_success_su_oper() encounter an OUT-OF-SERVICE SU but still has assignment (even absent assignment though). The result eventually is that AMFD will generate unexpected assignment messages. A solution is that AMFD can revert the order of headless recovery, which prioritizes to failover absent assignment first. This change should also be working, because it has already been supported in non-headless, where a node restarts while assignment on another node is still in progress. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/cluster.cc | 12 +++++------- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- - Repeat reported test case in ticket #2161 Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- - The reported test has SU1 getting Active assignment - Regression test of #1725 shall pass Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
