If acked/tested patch will be pushed on Monday. Thanks, Praveen On 07-Aug-13 5:44 PM, praveen.malv...@oracle.com wrote: > Summary: amfnd: amfnd: correlate clc scripts response event based on comp > name [#514] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s):amf #514 > Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F., Hans N., Nagendra, Mathivanan > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es):All > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > Refloating the patch after incorporating patch provided Hans F. > > changeset 3859340bf6df66936365fbe95660b4c75135c3f9 > Author: praveen.malv...@oracle.com > Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:39:40 +0530 > > amfnd: amfnd: correlate clc scripts response event based on comp name > [#514] > At present when clc response event comes AMFND searches whole component > database and matches the context. This context does not include > component > name. Thus AMFND can associate clc response with wrong component. The > patch > ensures that AMFND gets component name in the clc response event and > thus > solves the problem by associating clc response event with the component. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avnd/avnd_clc.c | 93 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/avsv/avnd/include/avnd_evt.h | 2 - > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Not tested fully in the issue context. > Brought up one controller in default branch on latest changeset. > Addtional testing and review is still under progress..... > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Controller came up successfully > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > > Ack from reviwers. > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 y y > 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 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! > It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. > Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
