Hi, Have you had time to look into the patch?
Best regards, Long Nguyen. On 4/28/2017 11:12 AM, Long H Buu Nguyen wrote: > 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
