Summary: smf: smf: Upgrade nodes without using node group [#2592] Review request for Ticket(s): 2592 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected] Pull request to: - Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2592 Base revision: a0fa359b50bbc5dac0209f9357a452a52630eaca Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/elunlen/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 9b45e87323309ecaac4840c1da9b51bf4e816933 Author: Lennart Lund <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:33:10 +0200 smf: smf: Upgrade nodes without using node group [#2592] Do not create a node group for lock operations on nodes if only one node (deactivation/activation units). This is needed to make it possible to upgrade old OpenSAF versions. On old versions AMF will crash and cause cyclic node reboot Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/smf/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 517 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- src/smf/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.h | 11 +- src/smf/smfd/SmfUtils.cc | 8 + 3 files changed, 345 insertions(+), 191 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- No tests available in OpenSAF repository 1. Test using a campaign that has only one node as deactivation/activation unit 2. Test using a campaign that has several nodes as deactivation/activation units Expected Results: -------------------------- 1. Locking/unlocking shall be done without creating a node group 2. Parallel locking/unlocking shall be done using a node group Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack by reviewers 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
