Hi Hans,
See my responses inline.
Regards, Vu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:28 PM
> To: Thuan Tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen
> <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Minh Hon Chau
> <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast
> fragmented messages [#3033] V3
>
> Hi Vu and Thuan,
>
> a few question, is the text in the ticket description correct? E.g it
> says unicast is used if a multicast message is fragmented, (I think
> multicast still is used
>
> to send the fragments), this is what you mean with 2 different channels?
> (only one socket is used, BSRsock),
[Vu] Yes. Unicast is used to send fragmented messages. Here is the current
logic in case of sending a large package:
Iterate over destinations { // mcm_pvt_process_svc_bcast_common() @
mds_c_sndrcv.c
1) Fragment the package // mdtm_frag_and_send() @ mds_dt_tipc.c
2) Unicast to a specific adest // mdtm_sendto() @ mds_dt_tipc.c
4) Continue with next adest
}
>
> The problem stated is sending one large multicast message and then
> several smaller multicast messages, have you checked the
>
> fragment re-assembly part of the common code?
[Vu] Yes. At the receive side, if msg is fragmented, mds will not forward to
upper layer until all fragmented msgs are collected.
If the message is not fragmented, mds will transfer the msg to upper right away.
I checked with TIPC guys here, and he said that TIPC does not guarantee the
order if we send msgs in different channels (unicast vs mcast).
>
> /BR Hans
>
>
> On 2019-04-24 13:06, thuan.tran wrote:
> > Summary: mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033]
> > Review request for Ticket(s): 3033
> > Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Minh, Vu
> > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
> > Affected branch(es): develop
> > Development branch: ticket-3033
> > Base revision: 7916ac316e86478c621c8359cf2aca4886288a38
> > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thuantr/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
> >
> > NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers
> >
> > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > N/A
> >
> > revision 568f09774f936506f5e05e03813fa572af0fe0d3
> > Author: thuan.tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:54:25 +0700
> >
> > mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033]
> >
> > - Sender may send broadcast big messages (> 65K) then small messages (<
> 65K).
> > Current MDS just loop via all destinations to unicast all fragmented
> messages
> > to one by one destinations. But sending multicast non-fragment messages
> to all
> > destinations. Therefor, receivers may get messages with incorrect order,
> > non-fragment messages may come before fragmented messages.
> > For example, it may lead to OUT OF ORDER for IMMNDs during IMMD sync.
> > - Solution: support send multicast each fragmented messages to avoid
> > disorder of arrived broadcast messages.
> >
> >
> >
> > Complete diffstat:
> > ------------------
> > src/mds/mds_c_sndrcv.c | 3 +-
> > src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> -----
> > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > Testing Commands:
> > -----------------
> > N/A
> >
> > Testing, Expected Results:
> > --------------------------
> > N/A
> >
> > Conditions of Submission:
> > -------------------------
> > N/A
> >
> > 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
