Summary: plm: don't set readiness state to in-service if EE is terminating
[#2734]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2734
Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi, Ravi
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2734
Base revision: 3c636068409de2fcb21ffeda839125809c5d1a0c
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/trguitar/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):
---------------------------------------------
revision 1a3ad81467d91b4f98b76657821e256645a3e5ab
Author: Alex Jones <alex.jo...@genband.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:39:08 -0500
plm: don't set readiness state to in-service if EE is terminating [#2734]
If an EE goes down during a controller switchover the TERMINATED message
sent by plmc to plmd may not be received because of the switch over.
In this case the EE will be stuck in terminating presence state.
If any parent of the EE is in OOS, then we can definitely set the presence
state to UNINSTANTIATED after the switchover. If not, then we can just set
the management-lost flag because we don't know whether or not the EE
terminated.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/plm/plmd/plms_stdby.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/plm/plmd/plms_utils.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
1) Reboot a bunch of VMs including the controller.
2) After the controller failover, using immlist, check the presence state of the
EEs that were rebooted
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
EE presence state for rebooted VMs should not be stuck in TERMINATING
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Dec. 19 or ack from developer.
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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
