[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043] V3

[Vu Minh Nguyen]

Summary: log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2043
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mahesh
Pull request to: <>
Affected branch(es): 5.1, 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 36beec718021c952420c1a8c059e5dc460d57a75
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen 
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:15:58 +0700

log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]

The `number of streams` refers to total existing log streams in 
cluster. And
`stream_array` is the database holding all existing log streams. When
interating all log streams, logsv first started at the index `number of
streams`, if getting NULL, logsv considered that case as `no stream`. 
This
is absolutely wrong.

This patch provides other way to iterate all log streams.


Complete diffstat:
--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_amf.cc|  29 +++--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_config.cc |  10 --
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.cc|  27 +++
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.cc|  56 
++--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.cc  |  19 ---
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_stream.cc |  48 
+---
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_stream.h  |   2 +-
 7 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
 <>


Testing, Expected Results:
--
 <>


Conditions of Submission:
-
 <>


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.


--
___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043] V2

[Vu Minh Nguyen]

Summary: log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043] V2
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2043
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mahesh
Pull request to: <>
Affected branch(es): 5.1, 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 1ac54efe5c1f1634692bd88b3af88e1847362b08
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen 
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:15:58 +0700

log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]

The `number of streams` refers to total existing log streams in 
cluster. And
`stream_array` is the database holding all existing log streams. When
interating all log streams, logsv first started at the index `number of
streams`, if getting NULL, logsv considered that case as `no stream`. 
This
is absolutely wrong.

This patch provides other way to iterate all log streams.


Complete diffstat:
--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_amf.cc|  34 
++
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_config.cc |  12 +++-
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.cc|  31 ---
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.cc|  63 
---
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.cc  |  29 +++--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_stream.cc |  16 +---
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_stream.h  |   3 ++-
 7 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
 <>


Testing, Expected Results:
--
 <>


Conditions of Submission:
-
 <>


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.


--
___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]

[Vu Minh Nguyen]

Summary: log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2043
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mahesh
Pull request to: <>
Affected branch(es): 5.1, 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 438902ac647e8cdbac71569f3e733d621ee067e8
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen 
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:15:58 +0700

log: fix ER no stream exists in syslog [#2043]

The `number of streams` refers to total existing log streams in 
cluster. And
`stream_array` is the database holding all existing log streams. When
interating all log streams, logsv first started at the index `number of
streams`, if getting NULL, logsv considered that case as `no stream`. 
This
is absolutely wrong.

This patch provides other way to iterate all log streams.


Complete diffstat:
--
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_amf.cc|  27 +++
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_config.cc |  13 +
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.cc|  28 
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.cc|  70 
++
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.cc  |  27 +++
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_stream.cc |   6 +++---
 6 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
 Create 02 streams, and then delete it in following order:
 1) create cfg stream A
 2) create cfg stream B
 3) delete stream A
 4) reboot active node


Testing, Expected Results:
--
 No see "no stream exists" in syslog


Conditions of Submission:
-
 Get acks from peer 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.


--