Hi Lennart, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On 2016/12/08 02:52 PM, Lennart Lund wrote: > Summary: smf: use IMM appler for the change in longDnsAllowed attributes > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2139 > Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected], [email protected] > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es): 5.1, default > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > For more info see smfsv/README file > > changeset 1b3445be29da87352c3411ee7524e6e7dba51b6e > Author: Lennart Lund <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 10:04:51 +0100 > > smf: use IMM appler for the change in longDnsAllowed attributes [#2139] > > Keep track of long DN setting using an IMM applier instead of reading > the > long DN setting in many places > > > Added Files: > ------------ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_long_dn.hh > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfImmApplierHdl.cc > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfImmApplierHdl.hh > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfLongDnApplier.cc > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfLongDnApplier.hh > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/README | 34 +++- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/Makefile.am | 13 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaign.cc | 5 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaignInit.cc | 6 - > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaignThread.cc | 13 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfImmApplierHdl.cc | 726 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfImmApplierHdl.hh | 113 +++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfImmOperation.cc | 15 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfLongDnApplier.cc | 441 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfLongDnApplier.hh | 84 +++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUtils.cc | 83 +-------- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUtils.hh | 7 - > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd.h | 2 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_amf.c | 20 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_campaign_oi.cc | 18 -- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_cb.h | 3 +- > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_evt.h | 7 + > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_long_dn.hh | 58 ++++++ > osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_main.c | 13 +- > 19 files changed, 1530 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Run legacy tests. Specifically test with long Dn objects > Solves problems with handling IMM objects handled by SMF OI if they are > handled after SMF is started but before any campaign has been started > and long Dn is involved. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack by 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
