Summary: clmd: checkpoint full node record in CCB modify cbk [#2265] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2265 Peer Reviewer(s): Anders Widell Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): ALL 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): --------------------------------------------- changeset d7dfb6227c5cff876426c68f5847b0f450b2e26e Author: Praveen Malviya <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:49:37 +0530 clmd: checkpoint full node record in CCB modify cbk [#2265] In the reported issue standby CLMD asserts while processing async update related to node. While standby controller is joining the cluster and a clm node is added using CCB operations then standby may not read this object from IMM. This can happen when active is still processing apply callback and standby has finised reading from IMM. Also if standby CLMD is still not visible to active CLMD via MBCSV then active will not checkpoint this newly added node. If this node does not come up before standby CLMD joins cluster active will not get nodeid of new node and hence it will not be added in node_id db. During cold sync phase active shares only node_id db with standby. Thus this new node will not be available in standby db. Now if a user modifies any attribute of this new node via CCB, active will checkpoint this information. Since standby CLMD does not have this node it asserts while searching for node. Patch fixes the problem by sending full record of newly added node during CCB modification. Upon receiving this record, standby will add this new node in its db. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/clm/clmd/clms_imm.c | 24 ++++++++++-------------- src/clm/clmd/clms_mbcsv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ src/clm/clmd/clms_mbcsv.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Tested with steps given in comment part of ticket. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Standby not crashed. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
