Hi Vu, Tested the patch. Ack. Thanks Mohan High Availability Solutions Pvt. Ltd. www.hasolutions.in
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: coredump when importing object having SaAnyT type value [#2988] V2 From: "Vu Minh Nguyen" <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> Date: 12/19/18 1:11 pm To: hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com, lennart.l...@ericsson.com, gary....@dektech.com.au Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Summary: imm: coredump when importing object having SaAnyT type value [#2988] Review request for Ticket(s): 2988 Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Hans, Gary Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2988 Base revision: 9ce47c5a79cc080d89d192bc1947ebd04aa0a122 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/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 y Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 7a2b68423960faf56983bc69995dc09a284f56e7 Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:10:49 +0700 imm: coredump when importing object having SaAnyT type value [#2988] With SaAnyT value, imm import passed wrong memory pointer to free(). Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/imm/tools/imm_import.cc | 16 ++-------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- immcfg -f TestClass.xml Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- no coredump is generated Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from peer reviewer(s) 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 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
