Hi My comments attached as a diff file
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafael Odzakow > Sent: den 24 augusti 2017 12:49 > To: Lennart Lund <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Rafael Odzakow > <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: execLevel for balanced > upgrade [#2555] > > Summary: smf: execLevel for balanced upgrade [#2555] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2555 > Peer Reviewer(s): reddy, lennart > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-2555 > Base revision: 2b4b4b2fd0f70381832ffff093dd09d4a75208c0 > 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 n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > revision 0eea25bc818f2264c7ae46257e71648cd56e6110 > Author: Rafael Odzakow <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:41:55 +0200 > > smf: execLevel for balanced upgrade [#2555] > > Currently the SMF created balanced procedures get the highest execLevel > and are therefore executed last in the chain. There are cases where it > is needed to execute procedures after the balanced procedures are > completed. To offer this feature SMF can check which execLevel existing > procedures that are used for balanced upgrade have. Inserting the > balanced procedure one step after the highest of those procedures. This > would allow to configure procedures that are not part of the balanced > group to be executed after a balanced procedure. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/smf/smfd/SmfExecControl.cc | 116 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 112 insertions(+), 4 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.
2555-Lennart.comments.diff
Description: 2555-Lennart.comments.diff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
