Hi Lennart, I tested the APIs between versions with/without the changes. I will send out for review the README and PR change after the code review is done. One limitation is that both active and standby require the patches to work.
Thanks, Minh > Hi Minh > > Ack. I have not tested much > > Have you tested using the reader API while running old version on standby > and new version on active and vice versa (upgrade case)? Limitations? > PR documentation update? > > Thanks > Lennart > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Minh Hon Chau >> Sent: den 22 januari 2018 05:19 >> To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; >> srinivas.mangip...@oracle.com; Canh Van Truong >> <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Minh Hon Chau >> <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Review Request for ntf: Checkpoint and cold sync >> reader information [#2757] >> >> Summary: ntfd: Checkpoint reader to the standby when processes reader >> API requests [#2757] >> Review request for Ticket(s): 2757 >> Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Srinivas, Canh >> Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** >> Affected branch(es): develop >> Development branch: ticket-2757 >> Base revision: ee105cb3bf44eee4e8785e3de7d24f907641e2ab >> 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 >> >> NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** >> >> revision 74da3370accfa44a34a7abf9830ceaeae3ab5d4f >> Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:08:59 +1100 >> >> ntftest: Add new test cases of suite 41 for cold sync and checkpoint of >> reader >> APIs [#2757] >> >> >> >> revision ad38745b1c411bc52905725281c84c69e4147fef >> Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:03:42 +1100 >> >> ntfd: Cold sync reader to the standby ntfd after rebooting the standby >> controller [#2757] >> >> Assumpt that the reader information is updated to the standby ntfd via >> checkpoint >> upon reception of reader APIs requests. However, if the standby >> controller >> reboots >> and comes up, the standby ntfd still has none of readers information >> which is >> available at the active ntfd. Now if a switchover happens, the new >> active will >> not >> be able to process the reader APIs requests with existing reader >> handles. >> >> This patch adds reader information as part of cold sync >> >> >> >> revision 47cf18850e6819c2db4642eb1e639aff5f0d8282 >> Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:12:00 +1100 >> >> ntfd: Checkpoint reader to the standby when processes reader API >> requests >> [#2757] >> >> When active ntfd receives reader API requests: ReaderIntialize, >> ReadNext, >> ReadFinalize, active ntfd does not update the readers information to the >> standby. Thus, either switchover or failover happens, the client can not >> continue to use the reader APIs, because there is no such reader >> information >> still available in the new active after switchover. >> >> The patch does checkpoint reader information to the standby when >> completes >> processing reader APIs request. >> >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> src/ntf/agent/ntfa_mds.c | 51 +-- >> src/ntf/apitest/tet_coldsync.c | 690 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> src/ntf/common/ntfsv_enc_dec.c | 88 +++++- >> src/ntf/common/ntfsv_enc_dec.h | 12 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.cc | 145 +++++++-- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.h | 17 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfClient.cc | 68 +++- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfClient.h | 11 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfLogger.cc | 2 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfReader.cc | 84 +++-- >> src/ntf/ntfd/NtfReader.h | 13 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.c | 105 +++++++ >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.h | 25 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_evt.c | 14 +- >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.c | 287 ++++++++++++++--- >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.h | 16 + >> src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mds.c | 42 +-- >> 17 files changed, 1430 insertions(+), 240 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> Run all test cases of suite 41, and legacy suites >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> All pass >> >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> ack from 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 Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
