Hi Rafael, Reviewed the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On 2017/05/19 05:47 PM, Rafael Odzakow wrote: > 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
