Hi,
Any comments on the patches? Otherwise I wish to push them in the next
day or two.
Thanks
Minh
On 8/11/19 9:33 pm, Minh Chau wrote:
Summary: mds: Distinguish protocol version of fragment [#3111]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3111
Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Vu, Thuan
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3111
Base revision: ddb9d7065376df7757716013779755864d53ebe5
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/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 y
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision 2cb2d135827d920155323a70a9587264e5c62ae2
Author: Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:17:22 +1100
mds: Add backward compatibility mdstest for fragment [#3111]
revision 153b657d2873019160f31a3091fa660e4e469a9e
Author: Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:08:18 +1100
mds: Refactor logging [#3111]
Since adding TipcPortId:ChangeState(), the patch refactors
logging to shorten the code.
revision 1ce0c74ca96fa028d02abe72932171e98c034342
Author: Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:51:54 +1100
mds: Distinguish protocol version of fragment [#3111]
The legacy mds encodes the protocol version in either non fragment
message or the first fragment only. Hence, the subsequent fragment
after the first one is not able for mds to determine the protocol
version.
The patch maintains the encoding of lengthcheck as same as the legacy
mds version. Also, the subsequent fragments needs to consult the
stateful portid to determine the protocol version, so that the
fragment will be skipped if it is sent from legacy mds, or inspected
the sequence if it is sent from new mds.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/mds/apitest/mdstipc_api.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++--
src/mds/mds_dt.h | 6 ++
src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c | 11 ++-
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_intf.cc | 154 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_msg.cc | 86 +++++++++++++++-------
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_msg.h | 5 ++
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_portid.cc | 94 +++++++++++-------------
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_portid.h | 1 +
8 files changed, 292 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
mdstest
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
all tests pass
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 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
