Summary: smf: try to wait for opensafd status before executing reboot [#2464] Review request for Ticket(s): 2464 Peer Reviewer(s): lennart, reddy Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2464 Base revision: a2798cef6b42f6c000d5bc0d4b9593eca367ea87 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/erafodz/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): --------------------------------------------- *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 941789f355fccca2d547d09c5710c664b3a61dba Author: Rafael Odzakow <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:11:34 +0200 smf: try to wait for opensafd status before executing reboot [#2464] There are cases when opensafd startup is still ongoing and SMF will send out a reboot command for a node. Because opensafd has taken a lock the reboot command will not be able to call opensafd stop. It is suggested that SMF tries to wait for the release of the lock with "opensafd status". The waiting time is short and SMF continues with reboot even if the lock is not released. ticket #2459 allows SMF to query the status of opensafd. - Refactor smf remote command to have two versions, one that logs errors of the endpoint command and one without error logging. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/smf/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 23 ++++++++++ src/smf/smfd/smfd_smfnd.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- src/smf/smfd/smfd_smfnd.h | 4 ++ 3 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC *** 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 ~/.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
