Summary: log: fix log server fail to start with old IMM model [#2580] Review request for Ticket(s): 2580 Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Canh Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: ticket-2580 Base revision: 126c7d9c59a41205ce16c2c9e8a7cae7457a0c2c Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/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 Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 284b81d913cc4b9f120d6b38389e9515cb84a59e Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:05:44 +0700 log: fix log server fail to start with old IMM model [#2580] LOG introduced the `saLogRecordDestination` attribute since OpenSAF 5.2 to handle the alternative destinations of log records, ticket [#2258]. During upgrade, if LOG server comes up before IMM model is updated to new one which has saLogRecordDestination in, LOG server will be crashed The solution is getting all attributes with running IMM model using saImmOmClassDescriptionGet(). Only fetching values of these values. If not having newly added attribute, use default ones. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/log/logd/lgs_imm.cc | 136 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- src/log/logd/lgs_stream.h | 2 + 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Remove one or serveral attributes from SaLogStreamConfig class, build code, and start cluster. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Cluster starts normally. 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
