Hi, Ack with comments. See attached diff file
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Hoa Le <hoa...@dektech.com.au> > Sent: den 4 juni 2018 07:07 > To: Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>; Lennart Lund > <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Hoa Le <hoa...@dektech.com.au> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ntf: restart ntfimcnd if operation > invoker name is missing [#2859] > > Summary: ntf: restart ntfimcnd if operation invoker name is missing [#2859] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2859 > Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Lennart > Pull request to: Minh, Lennart > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-2859 > Base revision: 5d8d104ef442e4c58e2c6f870b912994a1e68398 > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/xhoalee/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 5e15806a1f08c5b98941371f1dd49b8a4727aaec > Author: Hoa Le <hoa...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:54:34 +0700 > > ntf: restart ntfimcnd if operation invoker name is missing [#2859] > > If ntfimcnd was restarted during a CCB, it might receive ObjectDelete > operation as the first event. ccbUtilCcbData, which was initialized > in this case, does not contain the operation invoker name. This causes > ntfimcnd to crash and generates a coredump when the ccbUtilCcbData > being used in the next ApplyCallback. > > This patch helps avoid the above issue by validating the operation > invoker name in ApplyCallback and restarting ntfimcnd if the invoker > name is invalid. An error report notification will be sent out when > ntfimcnd being successfully started. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/ntf/ntfimcnd/ntfimcn_imm.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > N/A > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > N/A > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from reviewer > > > 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.
ntf_2859_lennart_comments.diff
Description: ntf_2859_lennart_comments.diff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
