Summary: dtm: Fix dtm close socket due to duplication of adding node IP info [#2984] Review request for Ticket(s): 2984 Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Minh, Ander, Hans Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2984 Base revision: 9ce47c5a79cc080d89d192bc1947ebd04aa0a122 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 n 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 1e17f7da43db9adc2368aae7ba88e734bc7ea4ec Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:29:34 +0700 dtm: Fix dtm close socket due to duplication of adding node IP info [#2984] During cluster start, one node (node 1) broadcast up msg to other node. The remote node (node 2) get this msg and send the connection to node 1 (connect()). Similarly node 1 send the connection to node 2 after node 2 broadcast up msg to. Beside of node 2 connect() to node 1, node 2 also add the IP and ID info of node 1 to database. But before of that, node 2 may also accept the connection that come from node 1. The acception is also add node ID of node 1. So there is 2 times adding the node ID info of node 1 to database in node 2. This causes the socket connection is closed and node is restart again. The patch change to retrieve node from database by node IP instead node ID in processing connection. This will reject the double of establishing connection between 2 nodes and also double of adding node IP to database. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm.h | 2 +- src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_inter_trans.cc | 3 ++- src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_node_db.cc | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_node_sockets.cc | 6 ++++- 4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC *** 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. _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel