Hi Long, I will review it by tomorrow.
Thanks Praveen On 15-May-17 8:55 AM, Long Nguyen wrote: > 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 <long.hb.ngu...@dektech.com.au> >>> 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 Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
