Summary: clm: lookup node db using node_name when lockcallback timesout #[227] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #227 clmd asserts on active controller during node lock timeout Peer Reviewer(s): Surender Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 4.2.x, 4.3.x, default Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
-------------------------------- 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 c8bffba9a26e6972df62fe04eefdbfbedd41034c Author: [email protected] Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:18:48 +0530 clm: lookup node db using node_name when lockcallback timesout #[227]. The processing of CLM node lockcallbacktimeout performs the lookup using node_id, but the node_id is not a part of the db because the node had just become a non-member(after lock command was issued). This leads to a failure of the node_id based lookup. This patch looksup using node_name during the processing of lockcallbacktimeout Complete diffstat: ------------------ .hgtags | 1 + README | 10 +++++----- configure.ac | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_cb.h | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_evt.c | 6 +++--- osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_imm.c | 10 +++++----- 6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Run a campaign that does the following 1) lock a payloadnode 2) amf takes more time to respond (need to be seen why) 3) take the node out of cluster, in other words reboot or stop opensaf completely Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Above steps. Without the patch, CLM asserts. With the patch, the node should be moved to REPAIR_PENDING! Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from surender Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your SQL database under version control now! Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
