Summary: amfnd: Return TRY_AGAIN for pg track start/stop during headless sync [#2660] Review request for Ticket(s): 2660 Peer Reviewer(s): AMF maintainers Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2660 Base revision: 39ff6baecdda95d205d251c7fa33971dc22503c1 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/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 766479bcf583d23ca9ab1bbb38321ddc66fffb42 Author: Minh Chau <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:18:50 +1100 amfnd: Return TRY_AGAIN for pg track start/stop during headless sync [#2660] The problem with pg track start/stop is similar to data_update msg that caused msg id out of order in ticket #2601. Amfnd can buffer the pg track/stop messages in the same way as data_update, instead amfnd can also return TRY_AGAIN while the headless sync is still going on. That avoids buffering messages and re-attaching msg_id and resend the pg track messages after headless sync. The retry mechanism is done at application's side, who should already being handle TRY_AGAIN return code. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/amf/amfd/pg.cc | 2 +- src/amf/amfnd/pg.cc | 10 ++++++---- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 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 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
