Summary: IMM: IMMD file verification made upgrade safe [#596] (Second try)
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 596
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default (4.4)
Development branch:
--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
Here is a *second* version of the patch for #596.
Hopefully this one works better.
changeset bd9053e0144169719cbaac8d0dabbca60fd01c4c
Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:29:25 +0100
IMM: IMMD file verification made upgrade safe [#596]
The protocol for communicating IMMND file configuration to the active
IMMD
and for checkpointing the same from active to standby IMMD has been
elaborated and made safer. In particular, an upgrade from pre 4.4.
OpenSAF
to OpenSAF 4.4 is now possible.
The file configuration consists of: (1) The directory for peristent
storage,
(2) The xml file to load from if PBE is not enabled or if no PBE file
exists, (3) The pbe file base-name to load from if PBE is enabled.
The IMMNDs also communicate epoch and PBE enabled/disabled state to the
IMMD
and the active IMMD checkpoints this to the standby.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/libs/common/immsv/immsv_evt.c | 12 ++++----
osaf/libs/common/immsv/include/immsv_evt.h | 14 +++++++++-
osaf/services/saf/immsv/README | 19 +++++++++-----
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_evt.c | 122
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_mbcsv.c | 6 ++--
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_sbevt.c | 43
+++++++++++++++++++--------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 11 +++++++-
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_proc.c | 68
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
8 files changed, 194 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
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
