Dear maintainers, Can you please help to review the patch?
Thanks so much, Long Nguyen. On 5/9/2017 9:29 AM, Long Nguyen wrote: > 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
