Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost [#2153]

2016-11-10 Thread Rafael Odzakow 
ACK


On 11/07/2016 01:12 PM, Lennart Lund wrote:
> Summary: smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2153
> Peer Reviewer(s): rafael.odza...@ericsson.com, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com
> Pull request to:
> Affected branch(es): 5.1 ->
> Development branch: <>
>
> 
> 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):
> -
>   <>
>
> changeset c693485eac53ec9792c067f9815fe93f99c5baa3
> Author:   Lennart Lund 
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:42:29 +0100
>
>   smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost [#2153]
>
>   Recreate handles and admin owner if creating a node group fail
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc |  46 
> +++---
>   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh |   1 +
>   2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> Intermittent problem. Campaign with nodes as deacivation/activation units
> may fail because of BAD HANDLE or BAD OPERATION when creating a node group.
> Run such a campaign many times
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Sahll never fail as described above
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> Will be pushed after one week or ack from all reviewers
>
>
> 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.
>


--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost [#2153]

2016-11-07 Thread Lennart Lund 
Summary: smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2153
Peer Reviewer(s): rafael.odza...@ericsson.com, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com
Pull request to: 
Affected branch(es): 5.1 ->
Development branch: <>


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):
-
 <>

changeset c693485eac53ec9792c067f9815fe93f99c5baa3
Author: Lennart Lund 
Date:   Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:42:29 +0100

smf: Fails to create a node group, admin owner/handle is lost [#2153]

Recreate handles and admin owner if creating a node group fail


Complete diffstat:
--
 osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc |  46 
+++---
 osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh |   1 +
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
Intermittent problem. Campaign with nodes as deacivation/activation units
may fail because of BAD HANDLE or BAD OPERATION when creating a node group.
Run such a campaign many times


Testing, Expected Results:
--
Sahll never fail as described above


Conditions of Submission:
-
Will be pushed after one week or ack from all reviewers


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.


--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel