Hi Gary,
ACK. Thank you!
Best Regards,
ThuanTr
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 1:30 PM
To: Nagendra Kumar <nagen...@hasolutions.in>; hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com;
minh.c...@dektech.com.au; thuan . tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Review Request for amfd: checkpoint node state to
standby [#2971]
Summary: amfd: checkpoint node state to standby [#2971] Review request for
Ticket(s): 2971 Peer Reviewer(s): Nagendra, Thuan, Minh, Hans Pull request
to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es):
develop Development branch: ticket-2971 Base revision:
8c5f9ab333231b093489e60071083a1452b93d0e
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/userid-2226215/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 846d1b4410f47f808f7f29cdba8e4abec167d99d
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:18:55 +1100
amfd: set userData [#2971]
Depending on timing, it's possible for node_info.member to be set after this
ccb callback. We should populate userData anyway, in case the active
validates this callback and then a SC failover to the standby occurs.
revision e5a149513f6425d36cfa61039d343656fc5c75d0
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:18:51 +1100
amfd: checkpoint node state to standby [#2971]
we need to checkpoint change to node_info.member to the standby
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/amf/amfd/ndfsm.cc | 3 +++
src/amf/amfd/node.cc | 1 +
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Scale in a node and perform a SC failover
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
New active AMFD does not assert
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from any 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.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
