Summary:osaf:fm on new-Active handling amfd up event of peer old-Active node
which is going down[#2151]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s):2151
Peer Reviewer(s):Praveen, Nagendra and Anders
Affected branch(es): default
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):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 9550aeae217714f50496e7e081299b73a46ee2df
Author: Ramesh Betham <ramesh.bet...@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:54:24 +0530
osaf:fm on new-Active handling amfd up event of peer old-Active node
which
is going down[#2151]
This patch addresses the specific scenario where the new Active is
coming up
and has discovered the afmd process on the peer node (which is going
down)
is still alive. Here the peer amfd/amfnd is still in the process of
going
down i.e., progressing in termination of application components having
big
timeouts etc.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/fm/fmd/fm_cb.h | 3 +++
src/fm/fmd/fm_evt.h | 2 +-
src/fm/fmd/fm_main.c | 114
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------------------
src/fm/fmd/fm_mds.c | 173
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------------------------
4 files changed, 186 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
1. Verify as per the reproducible steps mentioned in Ticket(#2151) description.
2. Verify switch-overs and failovers.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Once fm on new-Active detects amfd process is still alive on the peer node
which is going down (and no peer FM exist) issues a local-reboot by logging
appropriate message for admin to check.
Regular switchovers and failovers should pass.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Reviewers
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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
