Summary: amfd: choose unlocked instantiable SU for instantiation [#2462] Review request for Ticket(s): 2462 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2462 Base revision: 4557812c01ecea474b8f9d0fece36dca6976537a Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/ravi-sekhar/review
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- revision 63dc434cc7b76744cd21edb3af05c74a0003c2a3 Author: Ravi Sekhar <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:59:15 +0530 amfd: choose unlocked instantiable SU for instantiation [#2462] Issue: While evaluating the SG for Instantiations of SUs, we are checking for the hisghest ranked SU and triggering Instantation Here we are not checking whether that SU can provide Service or not. Fix: when an SU is choosen for Instantiation, If the choosen SU is in locked state we are checking if any other SU in the same rank is in Unlocked State, if so we are skipping instantiating the current choosen SU and continuing the for loop. So that in the next iteration the SU which can provide Service will be choosen and Instantiated Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- As per use case in Bug desc Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Unlocked Instantiable SU should get instantiated Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Peer reviewers 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
