ACK
On 11/07/2016 01:12 PM, Lennart Lund wrote: > Summary: smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2153 > Peer Reviewer(s): rafael.odza...@ericsson.com, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 5.1 -> > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset c693485eac53ec9792c067f9815fe93f99c5baa3 > Author: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:42:29 +0100 > > smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost [#2153] > > Recreate handles and admin owner if creating a node group fail > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 46 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh | 1 + > 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Intermittent problem. Campaign with nodes as deacivation/activation units > may fail because of BAD HANDLE or BAD OPERATION when creating a node group. > Run such a campaign many times > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Sahll never fail as described above > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Will be pushed after one week or ack from all reviewers > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
