I intend to push this patch tomorrow, unless there are any comments?


Anders Widell

On 08/02/2017 12:51 PM, Anders Widell wrote:
Summary: rde: Avoid sending messages to peers that are not up [#2488]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2488
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2488
Base revision: 4aec4a89cadeff7a642ae49bbb6c638632e73b7e
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        y
  Core libraries          n
  Samples                 n
  Tests                   n
  Other                   n

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

revision 0e40cc0bdab8a86cd04a0fea0a8b46409368375f
Author: Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:40:44 +0200

rde: Avoid sending messages to peers that are not up [#2488]

Replace the request-reply message exchange between RDE peers with a simpler
protocol that just sends the reply message just after receiving peer up
notifications. This will minimize the probability of trying to send to a peer
that is down. Also remove the retransmission logic that was mostly needed
because messages can be received before the node up event, which is now no
longer an issue.

Complete diffstat:
  src/rde/rded/rde_main.cc | 26 +++++---------------------
  src/rde/rded/rde_mds.cc  | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
  src/rde/rded/role.cc     |  9 ++++++++-
  src/rde/rded/role.h      |  3 +++
  4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:

Run regression tests, especially focusing on the "spare SC" feature.

Testing, Expected Results:

Regression tests shall pass.

Conditions of Submission:

Ack from reviewer(s), or at 2017-08-09

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

Reply via email to