Hi,
ack from me (code review)
Thanks
Minh
On 25/4/19 9:33 pm, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Hans,
Probably you were looking at code that included this Thuan's patch.
In legacy code, only mdtm_sendto() is called inside the function
mdtm_frag_and_send().
Regards, Vu
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:10 PM
To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Thuan Tran
<thuan.t...@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,
It seems mdtm_mcast_sendto is used in mdtm_frag_and_send, at
MDS_SENDTYPE_BCAST/BR Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
Sent: den 25 april 2019 12:20
To: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>; Thuan Tran
<thuan.t...@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 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
