William Schumann wrote: > > > Joseph J VLcek wrote: >> William Schumann wrote: >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1010 >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~wmsch/bug-1010/ >>> >>> There is no progress message for any Target Instantiation tasks. >>> The GUI pauses, then immediately displays Transfer module progress. >>> >>> During debugging, it became evident that Orchestrator function >>> om_perform_install() must return before the GUI proceeds to the >>> installation progress display. Currently, TI starts, makes progress >>> callbacks to the GUI, and finishes before om_perform_install() returns. >>> >>> The fix involves not waiting for the TI thread to complete from >>> within om_perform_install, but from within the Transfer Module thread. >>> >>> From examination of code, it was also discovered that if TI were to >>> fail, the GUI would hang and the "Installation Failed" would never be >>> displayed. The code that reports TI failures has been fixed, too. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> >> William, >> >> Issues 1: >> --------- >> I think it would be valuable to have this description added to the bug. > Added one missing sentence to bug comments. >> >> Issue 2: >> -------- >> >> Shouldn't you invoke om_set_error() before lines 599, 605, 633, .. ? >> I may have missed on in this list but the point is I think you want to >> call om_set_error() any place you set status = -1 ? Am I correct? >> (We discussed this in IRC) >> > In one of those instances, om_set_error() was called by a function used > there. I have supplied om_set_error() for the other two. >> Issue 3: >> -------- >> This is more of a nit since the code has been doing this but >> >> "./lib/libti/ti_api.h" defines enum ti_errno_t but -1 is assigned to >> status and status is declared as an int and should be ti_errno_t... >> >> I'm not sure if it is worth fixing this one now or not... I'll leave >> that up to you. > I made a distinction between 'status' and the ti_errno_t codes returned > by TI calls. Look for ti_status. >> >> Joe > Joe, thanks for the comments. Please review my changes in the updated > webrev. > William
Thanks William, Looks fine now. Joe
