Summary: base: Add Mutex, Lock and ConditionVariable classes [#2173] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2173 Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(5.2) Development branch: default
-------------------------------- 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 y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 13cabe8bd812a04beab2270086d1ffeb4a2572a7 Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:12:00 +0100 base: Add Mutex, Lock and ConditionVariable classes [#2173] Add classes for Mutex, Lock and ConditionVariable - similar to std::mutex, std::unique_lock and std::condition_variable. One reason for adding these to OpenSAF is that the C++ standard library casses are unapproved by the Google C++ Style Guide. Another reason is that we can integrate them better into OpenSAF: we select the appropriate options when creating the mutex and condition variable, and we call osaf_abort() in case an unexpected error is encountered. Also, we will use an error checking mutex when the ENABLE_DEBUG preprocessor macro is defined - paving the way for special OpenSAF debug builds. changeset 26bb6661c0aef547c61ca9358cbc8cc514acba31 Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:16:10 +0100 base: Use the Mutex and Lock classes [#2173] Use the new Mutex and Lock classes instead of std::mutex, std::unique_lock and pthread_mutex_t. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/Makefile.am | 4 ++++ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/condition_variable.cc | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/condition_variable.h | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/mutex.cc | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/mutex.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/process.cc | 31 ++++++++++++++++++------------- osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/process.h | 19 ++++++++++--------- osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/unix_socket.cc | 17 ++--------------- osaf/libs/core/cplusplus/base/unix_socket.h | 3 ++- 9 files changed, 298 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Build and start OpenSAF. Run regression tests. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Regression tests should pass. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from reviewer(s) 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
