Hi Hung, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On 2017/03/01 12:32 PM, Hung Nguyen wrote: > Summary: imm: Sync latest ccb-id to sync clients [#2323] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2323 > 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 bb9bc2cb99f8fa18ee3ee74094468c0bbef15ead > Author: Hung Nguyen <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:01:14 +0700 > > imm: Sync latest ccb-id to sync clients [#2323] > > When finalizing sync, immnd coordinator stores latest ccb-id in > ImmsvCcbOutcomeList. It is stored as a ccb with ccb-id being zero. The > sync > clients update mLatestCcbId when receiving ND2ND_SYNC_FINALIZE_2 > message. > > When rolling upgrading, it's not a valid case when an old-versioned node > joins the cluster. After rebooting, the nodes are supposed to be > upgraded > and run with new version. We don't have to worry about old-versioned > sync- > client receiving ccb-id = 0. > > We don't have to sync latest admo-id and latest implementer-id because > amdo > and implementer are all "cleared" in IMMND when headless. There won't > be any > problem if IMMD reset IMMD_CB.admo_id_count and IMMD_CB.impl_count. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/imm/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- > src/imm/immnd/ImmModel.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > See the ticket for more details. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > > > > 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
