Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh 

Ok I will wait for new V4 patch .

-AVM


On 1/19/2017 1:05 PM, Vo Minh Hoang wrote:
> Dear Mahesh,
>
> I checked with newest source code, problem still occur.
> So it is in different case.
>
> Btw, I found some unexpected characters in submitted patch.
> So I will send updated file for review.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Hoang
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vo Minh Hoang [mailto:hoang.m...@dektech.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: 'A V Mahesh' ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
> failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3
>
> Dear Mahesh,
>
> I will check that again.
> I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Hoang
>
> -Original Message-
> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
> To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
> failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3
>
> Hi Hoang,
>
>>>Testing Commands:
>>> -
>>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing
>>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
> Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
> become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
> the case with
> #2253 and confirm the issue still exist.
>
> -AVM
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
>> Hi Hoang,
>>
>> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>>
>> -AVM
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review
>>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s):
>>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request
>>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development
>>> branch: default
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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):
>>> -
>>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything
>>> compare to previous version
>>>
>>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>>> Author: Hoang Vo 
>>> Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>>
>>> cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>>
>>> problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
> unlinked, it
>>> might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
> object
>>> is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
> will not
>>> succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
> existing.
>>> Fix:
>>> - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
> re-create new
>>> one.
>>> - Stop timer of removed node.
>>> - Update data in patricia trees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Complete diffstat:
>>> --
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>> 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Testing Commands:
>>> -
>>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing
>>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>>
>>> Testing, Expected Results:
>>> --
>>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>>
>>> Conditions of Submission:
>>> -
>>> ACK from maintainer
>>>
>>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>>> ---
>>> mipsn  n
>>> mips64  n  n
>>> x86 n  n
>>> x86_64  n  n
>>> 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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Vo Minh Hoang 
Dear Mahesh,

I checked with newest source code, problem still occur.
So it is in different case.

Btw, I found some unexpected characters in submitted patch.
So I will send updated file for review.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: Vo Minh Hoang [mailto:hoang.m...@dektech.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:17 PM
To: 'A V Mahesh' ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Dear Mahesh,

I will check that again.
I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>>osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
the case with
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review 
>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s):
>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request
>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development
>> branch: default
>>
>> 
>> 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):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything 
>> compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  n
>> mips64  n  n
>> x86 n  n
>> x86_64  n  n
>> 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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Vo Minh Hoang 
Dear Mahesh,

I will check that again.
I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>>osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
the case with
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review 
>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s): 
>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request 
>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development 
>> branch: default
>>
>> 
>> 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):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything 
>> compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  n
>> mips64  n  n
>> x86 n  n
>> x86_64  n  n
>> 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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh 
Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
>>killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd 
to become active cpd)
if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest the case with 
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765
>> Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
>> Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
>> Affected branch(es): default
>> Development branch: default
>>
>> 
>> 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):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure,
>> do not change anything compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being 
>> unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM 
>> object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it 
>> will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and 
>> re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
>> killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  n
>> mips64  n  n
>> x86 n  n
>> x86_64  n  n
>> 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.
>>
>>

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Hoang Vo 
Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765
Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default


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):
-
Rebase source code to newest folder structure,
do not change anything compare to previous version

changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
Author: Hoang Vo 
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700

cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]

problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being 
unlinked, it
might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM 
object
is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it 
will not
succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object existing.

Fix:
- When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and 
re-create new
one.
- Stop timer of removed node.
- Update data in patricia trees.


Complete diffstat:
--
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Checkpoint information is not change

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  n
mips64  n  n
x86 n  n
x86_64  n  n
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 ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, 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.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the