Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-06 Thread Neelakanta Reddy 
Hi Rafael,

Can you please comment on the below points:

1.   forAddRemove Optimization of node must be present in both 
activation and deactivation. (The published patch does not check if the 
node is present in both AU & DU).

2. The published patch must also include for Su/Comp and optimize if 
present in both AU & DU.


Thanks,
Neel.

On 2016/12/02 06:46 PM, Neelakanta Reddy wrote:
> Hi Tai,
>
> forAddRemove  we can have the following cases:
> 1.  only  deactivationUnit
> 2. only  activationUnit
> 3. both
>
> For case 1 and 2 we can not optimize for node/Su/Comp.
> For case 3 we can optimize for node/Su/comp.
>
> I think the published patch needs to be corrected.
> i.e if node/SU/Comp is present in both activation and deactivation then
> only optimize, otherwise do not optimize.
>
> Thanks,
> Neel.
>
>
>
> On 2016/12/02 05:44 PM, Tai Chi DINH wrote:
>> Hi Neel,
>>
>> I think we also need to remove any duplication under SU level and
>> Component Level also.
>> Example we have the original campaign that have:
>> - Rolling on SCs
>> - ForModify on SU1, SU2 that are hosted on PLs
>> - ForAddRemoved on SU1, SU2.
>>
>> Which this patch, the result campaign will have AU/DU on
>> SCs/SU1/SU2/SU1/SU2.
>> Which means we have redundant/unnecessary lock/unlock of SU1/SU2 (it's
>> enough to just lock/unlock them only once).
>>
>> How do you think?
>>
>> /Tai
>> Quoting Neelakanta Reddy > >:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Neel.
>>>
>>> On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com
>>>  wrote:
 Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
 mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
 Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
 Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
 Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
 -

 changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
 Author:Neelakanta Reddy >
 Date:Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530

  smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
  mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]


 Complete diffstat:
 --
 osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40
 +++-
 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


 Testing Commands:
 -
 campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node
 level

 Testing, Expected Results:
 --
 Campaign should not fail

 Conditions of Submission:
 -
 Ack from Reviewers

 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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-06 Thread Rafael Odzakow 
Reviewed, ACK from me.


On 12/02/2016 11:52 AM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com wrote:
> Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in 
> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
> Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
> Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
> -
>
> changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
> Author:   Neelakanta Reddy 
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530
>
>   smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
>   mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40 
> +++-
>   1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node level
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Campaign should not fail
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> Ack from Reviewers
>
> 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 ~/.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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-05 Thread Neelakanta Reddy 
Hi Lennart,

By mistakenly I included the name of #2214 instead of #2209 in the 
review request for #2209.

The review request/comments on the patch are referring to #2209 (not #2214).

Here we are talking about #2209 only(but the published patch has defect 
number #2214 ).

If you are still confused, please let me know I will re-publish #2209 
with correct defect number.

Thanks,
Neel.


On 2016/12/05 05:13 PM, Lennart Lund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a little bit confused regarding the review of ticket #2209. I was 
> asked to prioritize reviewing of #2209 and I can see that the ticket 
> has status “review” but I cannot find any review request for this 
> ticket. However the patch sent for review for ticket #2214 seems to 
> contain the code Tai Dinh added as a comment in the #2209 ticket? Also 
> the #2214 ticket is in state “unassigned”. Can someone please clarify 
> what the problem is, what patch that solves it and which ticket we are 
> talking about. Also please fix so that ticket #2214 and #2209 gets the 
> correct state.
>
> Thanks
>
> Lennart
>
> *From:*Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* den 2 december 2016 14:16
> *To:* Tai Chi Dinh 
> *Cc:* Lennart Lund ; Rafael Odzakow 
> ; opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow 
> optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>
> Hi Tai,
>
> forAddRemove  we can have the following cases:
> 1.  only  deactivationUnit
> 2. only  activationUnit
> 3. both
>
> For case 1 and 2 we can not optimize for node/Su/Comp.
> For case 3 we can optimize for node/Su/comp.
>
> I think the published patch needs to be corrected.
> i.e if node/SU/Comp is present in both activation and deactivation 
> then only optimize, otherwise do not optimize.
>
> Thanks,
> Neel.
>
>
> On 2016/12/02 05:44 PM, Tai Chi DINH wrote:
>
> Hi Neel,
>
> I think we also need to remove any duplication under SU level and
> Component Level also.
> Example we have the original campaign that have:
> - Rolling on SCs
> - ForModify on SU1, SU2 that are hosted on PLs
> - ForAddRemoved on SU1, SU2.
>
> Which this patch, the result campaign will have AU/DU on
> SCs/SU1/SU2/SU1/SU2.
> Which means we have redundant/unnecessary lock/unlock of SU1/SU2
> (it's enough to just lock/unlock them only once).
>
> How do you think?
>
> /Tai
> Quoting Neelakanta Reddy  >:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214
>
> Thanks,
> Neel.
>
> On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com
>  wrote:
>
> Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove
> in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
> Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
> Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
> -
>
> changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
> Author:Neelakanta Reddy
>  >
> Date:Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530
>
> smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
> osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40
> +++-
> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with
> AU/SU node level
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Campaign should not fail
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> Ack from Reviewers
>
> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-05 Thread Lennart Lund 
Hi,

I am a little bit confused regarding the review of ticket #2209. I was asked to 
prioritize reviewing of #2209 and I can see that the ticket has status “review” 
but I cannot find any review request for this ticket. However the patch sent 
for review for ticket #2214 seems to contain the code Tai Dinh added as a 
comment in the #2209 ticket? Also the #2214 ticket is in state “unassigned”. 
Can someone please clarify what the problem is, what patch that solves it and 
which ticket we are talking about. Also please fix so that ticket #2214 and 
#2209 gets the correct state.

Thanks
Lennart

From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com]
Sent: den 2 december 2016 14:16
To: Tai Chi Dinh 
Cc: Lennart Lund ; Rafael Odzakow 
; opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization 
at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

Hi Tai,

forAddRemove  we can have the following cases:
1.  only  deactivationUnit
2. only  activationUnit
3. both

For case 1 and 2 we can not optimize for node/Su/Comp.
For case 3 we can optimize for node/Su/comp.

I think the published patch needs to be corrected.
i.e if node/SU/Comp is present in both activation and deactivation then only 
optimize, otherwise do not optimize.

Thanks,
Neel.


On 2016/12/02 05:44 PM, Tai Chi DINH wrote:

Hi Neel,

I think we also need to remove any duplication under SU level and Component 
Level also.
Example we have the original campaign that have:
- Rolling on SCs
- ForModify on SU1, SU2 that are hosted on PLs
- ForAddRemoved on SU1, SU2.

Which this patch, the result campaign will have AU/DU on SCs/SU1/SU2/SU1/SU2.
Which means we have redundant/unnecessary lock/unlock of SU1/SU2 (it's enough 
to just lock/unlock them only once).

How do you think?

/Tai
Quoting Neelakanta Reddy 
>:
Hi All,

Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214

Thanks,
Neel.

On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, 
reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in 
mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
-

changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
Author:Neelakanta Reddy 
>
Date:Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530

smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]


Complete diffstat:
--
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40 
+++-
1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node level

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Campaign should not fail

Conditions of Submission:
-
Ack from Reviewers

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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-02 Thread Tai Chi DINH 
  Hi Neel,

I think we also need to remove any duplication under SU level and Component
Level also.
Example we have the original campaign that have:
- Rolling on SCs
- ForModify on SU1, SU2 that are hosted on PLs
- ForAddRemoved on SU1, SU2.

Which this patch, the result campaign will have AU/DU on
SCs/SU1/SU2/SU1/SU2.
Which means we have redundant/unnecessary lock/unlock of SU1/SU2 (it's
enough to just lock/unlock them only once).

How do you think?

/Tai
Quoting Neelakanta Reddy :

> Hi All,
>
> Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214
>
> Thanks,
> Neel.
>
> On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
>> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
>> Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
>> Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, default
>> Development branch:default
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>> -
>>
>> changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
>> Author:        Neelakanta Reddy 
>> Date:        Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530
>>
>>         smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
>>         mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>> osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40
>> +++-
>> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node
>> level
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Campaign should not fail
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> Ack from Reviewers
>>
>> 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 ~/.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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-02 Thread Neelakanta Reddy 
Hi All,

Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214

Thanks,
Neel.

On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com wrote:
> Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in 
> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
> Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
> Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
> -
>
> changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
> Author:   Neelakanta Reddy 
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530
>
>   smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
>   mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40 
> +++-
>   1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node level
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Campaign should not fail
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> Ack from Reviewers
>
> 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 ~/.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 world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Opensaf-devel mailing list
> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org!

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]

2016-12-02 Thread reddy . neelakanta 
Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in 
mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214
Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai
Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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):
-

changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a
Author: Neelakanta Reddy 
Date:   Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530

smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in
mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214]


Complete diffstat:
--
 osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc |  40 
+++-
 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node level

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Campaign should not fail

Conditions of Submission:
-
Ack from Reviewers

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 ~/.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 world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel