Hi Hung, The local implementers will be discarded in "immnd_proc_discard_other_nodes" while discarding clients. The implementers from the other node will be discarded in immModel_isolateThisNode.
If the IMMD broadcast misses also this should be covered in either of the above. /Neel. On 2017/02/17 01:35 PM, Hung Nguyen wrote: > Summary: imm: Cleanup orphaned implementers and admowners when headless > [#2309] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2309 > Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Neel > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 > Development branch: 5.2 > > -------------------------------- > 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 d79e3d47468b927dd5b06f2efa869a63380fe3c4 > Author: Hung Nguyen <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:03:49 +0700 > > imm: Cleanup orphaned implementers and admowners when headless [#2309] > > If a client is down right before headless, chances are the implementers > and > admowners will be orphaned because IMMD fails to broadcast global > discard > messages. This patch cleans those orphaned implementers and admowners > up. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/imm/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 31 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Kill client right before headless. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > No orphaned implementers or admowners. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from 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
