Summary: amf: send oper_state when NCS SUs already instantiated [#2443]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2443
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs
Pull request to: AMF maintainers
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2443
Base revision: 94fe6f2ca5c34bafc86f001807ea08ce39f60a34
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/xlobung/review
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services n
OpenSAF services y
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
Assume after headless, SC-1 becomes ACTIVE. Amfnd in SC-2 sends a node_up
message to amfd-SC-1. amfnd-SC-2 will instantiate NCS SUs in SC-2 as
soon
as amfd-SC-1 receives the node_up message. At the time NCS SUs in SC-2
are INSTANTIATED, if SC-1 is rebooted, amfnd-SC-2 receives NEW_ACTIVE
because amfd-SC-2 is set to ACTIVE by RDE. amfnd-SC-2 sends a node_up
message to amfd-SC-2. Later, amfnd-SC-2 continues to instantiate NCS SUs
in SC-2. However, the NCS SUs in SC-2 are already INSTANTIATED.
amfnd-SC-2
does not send oper_state message to amfd-SC-2 because the NCS SU
presence
states do not change. As a result, amf does not continue with the normal
startup process.
revision 01dc86166f3ed1b9b46534092089d5bcfaf1ef57
Author: Long H Buu Nguyen <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:39:09 +0700
amf: send oper_state when NCS SUs already instantiated [#2443]
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/amf/amfnd/susm.cc | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
As described in the ticket.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Opensaf starts successfully.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack'ed 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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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
