[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: close sockets at the end of mdtm_tipc_destroy() [#3125]

2019-12-02 Thread thuan.tran
Summary: mds: close sockets at the end of mdtm_tipc_destroy() [#3125] Review request for Ticket(s): 3125 Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Vu, Thang, Gary Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-3125 Base revision: cda2e505cb7a018

[devel] [PATCH 1/1] mds: close sockets at the end of mdtm_tipc_destroy() [#3125]

2019-12-02 Thread thuan.tran
Aslo create wrapper of sendto() to retry if errno is ENOMEM/ENOBUFFS/EINTR. And return for other errors, do not assert() cause coredump. --- src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c| 47 +++- src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.h| 3 ++ src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_portid.cc | 30 +

Re: [devel] [PATCH 2/2] mds: Avoid message reallocation [#3089]

2019-12-02 Thread Nguyen Minh Vu
Hi Minh, Ack. Thanks, Vu On 11/28/19 6:54 PM, Minh Chau wrote: The patch avoids message reallocation if the message is in retransmission queue --- src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c| 68 +++- src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_intf.cc | 6 ++-- src/mds/mds_tipc_fc

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/2] Review Request for mds: Avoid message reallocation [#3089] V3

2019-12-02 Thread Tran Thuan
Hi Minh, No more comment from me. Thanks. Best Regards, ThuanTr -Original Message- From: Minh Hon Chau Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:53 PM To: thuan.t...@dektech.com.au; vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au; gary@dektech.com.au; hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourc

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/2] Review Request for mds: Avoid message reallocation [#3089] V3

2019-12-02 Thread Minh Hon Chau
Hi Vu, Thuan Any comments on the patches. Thanks Minh On 28/11/19 10:54 pm, Minh Chau wrote: Summary: mds: Avoid message reallocation [#3089] Review request for Ticket(s): 3089 Peer Reviewer(s): Thuan, Vu, Gary Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es)

Re: [devel] [PATCH 1/1] amfd: not accept lock-in if su is reparing [#3121]

2019-12-02 Thread Minh Hon Chau
Hi Thang, I assume you have tried and there is no way to reuse the current *state* of su to prevent the lock-in op in this scenario, and this patch tested ok with upgrade/downgrade. The down side of adding checkpoint is that we will stick with it even then we find better solution later on, sin