Hi Gary,
ack for code review. Still a few other places that call
opensaf_quick_reboot can be visited later.
Thanks,
Minh
> Summary: fmd: improve failover response time V2 [#3008]
> Review request for Ticket(s): 3008
> Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Minh
> Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
> Affected branch(es): develop
> Development branch: ticket-3008
> Base revision: 5766361568498f8a496d87d8daafe9bffbd75ed9
> Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/userid-2226215/review
>
>
> Impacted area Impact y/n
>
> Docsn
> Build systemn
> RPM/packaging n
> Configuration files n
> Startup scripts n
> SAF servicesy
> OpenSAF servicesn
> Core libraries n
> Samples n
> Tests n
> Other n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> -
>
> revision 8ccffc2cd9cd117578227e9cd49421e5c578fec6
> Author: Gary Lee
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:57:53 +1100
>
> rded: do not send SUCCESS to main thread [#3008]
>
> do not send RDE_MSG_ACTIVE_PROMOTION_SUCCESS to
> main thread if lock cannot be obtained
>
>
>
> revision 28e17d107f4a079155e03d9f875a3c0262ea19f5
> Author: Gary Lee
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:57:53 +1100
>
> fmd: improve failover response time [#3008]
>
> Improve failover response time if split brain prevention is enabled
> but FMS_TAKEOVER_PRIORITISE_PARTITION_SIZE is set to 0.
>
> Also, return immediately if node promotion fails to avoid
> sending active role to RDA.
>
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
> src/fm/fmd/fm_rda.cc | 14 +-
> src/rde/rded/role.cc | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES ***
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS ***
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC ***
>
>
> Arch Built StartedLinux distro
> ---
> mipsn 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.
>
>
