Hi Lennart, Please see my reply comment [Canh1] in the attachment.
Thanks Canh -----Original Message----- From: Lennart Lund [mailto:lennart.l...@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 7:40 PM To: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix log agent may crash after recovery fails [#2670] Hi Canh, I have added some new comments. See [Lennart1] in the attached .diff Note that this patch contains all comments so I shall be applied alone, not on top of the other comment patches Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Canh Van Truong [mailto:canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au] > Sent: den 2 mars 2018 07:29 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix log agent may crash > after recovery fails [#2670] > > Hi Lennart, > > Please see my replied comment in attachment. > > Thanks > Canh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lennart Lund [mailto:lennart.l...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:00 PM > To: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au>; Lennart Lund > <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix log agent may crash > after recovery fails [#2670] > > Hi Canh > > I have done a review and have some comments. See attached diff > > Thanks > Lennart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Canh Van Truong [mailto:canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au] > > Sent: den 9 november 2017 04:25 > > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Vu Minh Nguyen > > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix log agent may crash after > > recovery fails [#2670] > > > > Summary: log: fix log agent may crash after recovery fails [#2670] > > Review request for Ticket(s): 2670 > > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Vu > > Pull request to: Vu > > Affected branch(es): develop, release > > Development branch: ticket-2670 > > Base revision: ce78275348c06f5d69577744f0dab525e79443e7 > > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/canht32/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 980226974b1ab266b068eded487e6ce26b9645c0 > > Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > > Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:14:53 +0700 > > > > log: fix log agent may crash after recovery fails [#2670] > > > > In log api, the client is deleted from the list in the agent after > recovery fails. > > there is no check if this client is used by other user. > > > > The patch fix to make sure that the deletion is just processed when it is > not > > being used. > > > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > src/log/agent/lga_agent.cc | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > -- > > --------- > > src/log/agent/lga_agent.h | 2 +- > > src/log/agent/lga_client.h | 19 +++++--------- > > src/log/agent/lga_util.cc | 25 +++---------------- > > src/log/agent/lga_util.h | 3 +-- > > 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** > > > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** > > > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack from 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.
Canh_log_2670_comments1.diff
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
