Summary: amfd: remove redundant notifications to RDE [#2115]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2115
Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW, AMF devs
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): all
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 420fec0f9979800d1b7510d4ae32565fb61fe83a
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:43:08 +1100
amfd: remove redundant notifications to RDE [#2115]
Currently, RDE uses AMF callbacks from AMFND and pcs_rda_requests from
AMFD
to determine its role. During a controller switch, this can be observed
on
the active controller:
Dec 2 03:56:27 SC-2 osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to QUIESCED Dec 2
03:56:28 SC-2 osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to STANDBY Dec 2 03:56:32
SC-2
osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to QUIESCED Dec 2 03:56:37 SC-2
osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to STANDBY
The first two are a result of AMF callbacks, and last two from
pcs_rda_request. The last two will result in confusing callbacks to RDE
clients.
During active->quiesced and quiesced->standby transitions, RDE will
already
have received CSI callbacks. There is no need for amfd to inform RDE
again.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/role.cc | 8 --------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
amf-adm si-swap safSi=SC-2N,safApp=OpenSAF
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Check syslog on (old) active controller.
Make sure it only shows:
Dec 2 03:56:27 SC-2 osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to QUIESCED
Dec 2 03:56:28 SC-2 osafrded[9582]: NO RDE role set to STANDBY
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
<<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
