Hi Anders Widell ,

I will review and ACK by EOD.

-AVM

On 8/3/2017 2:08 PM, Anders Widell wrote:
Hi Mahesh!

I intend to push this tomorrow unless there are any comments.

thanks,

Anders Widell


On 07/28/2017 10:15 AM, Anders Widell wrote:
Summary: base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2535
Peer Reviewer(s): Mahesh
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2535
Base revision: ac580c6389d5fe3b3f5e0300947957d2da338ba1
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/anders-w/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        n
  Core libraries          y
  Samples                 n
  Tests                   n
  Other                   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------

revision 10a76da49f211674579fe5e03fe9d72c44e63709
Author:    Anders Widell <[email protected]>
Date:    Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:08:08 +0200

base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]

The osaf_get_boot_time function returns the time stamp when the node was booted. The osaf_timespec_average function returns the average of two time stamps.



Added Files:
------------
  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc
  src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc


Complete diffstat:
------------------
  src/base/Makefile.am                         |  12 ++-
  src/base/osaf_time.c                         |  24 +++++
  src/base/osaf_time.h                         |  40 +++++++
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.cc         |  20 ++++
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.h          |   3 +
  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc    |  77 ++++++++++++++
src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  7 files changed, 323 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------

make check


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------

unit tests shall pass


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------

Ack from reviewer(s) or on 2017-08-04


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

Reply via email to