Hi Zoran, Reviewed the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Friday 01 November 2013 03:20 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Summary: IMM: fix memory problem in saImmOmSearchNext_2 [#612] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 612 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Anders > Pull request to: Zoran > Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.2.x, opensaf-4.3.x > Development branch: opensaf-4.3.x > > -------------------------------- > 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 cdca7b2a6652c0891d05d0de6e73fad59a89fb31 > Author: dung.v.cao <dung.v....@dektech.com.au> > Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:20:28 +0100 > > IMM: fix memory problem in saImmOmSearchNext_2 [#612] > > Fix free of memory in saImmOmSearchNext_2 when imma type is not > IMMA_EVT_ND2A_SEARCHNEXT_RSP. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_om_api.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Hard to reproduce. there needs to be ongoing searches when a node reboot or > IMMND crashes. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep Android apps secure. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
