Good work! We will re-test with the correction applied. thanks,
Anders Widell On 02/03/2017 10:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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
