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), 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? /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
