Summary: IMM: 2PBE patch-7 (Fix two problems in immloader) [#21] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 21 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): --------------------------------------------- Besides the patch fixing the two loading problems, this review request aims to be the final review request for the 2PBE loading enhancement. I hope to push the patch stack for 2PBE (including this seventh patch) on Tuesday next week. Problems discovered after that (with or without 2PBE configured) will be handled as defects on default(4.4). changeset bbf3c1efa6a5e23eee3fe46b90753f078f588d7f Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:44:52 +0100 IMM: 2PBE patch-7 (Fix two problems in immloader) [#21] he 2PBE patch stack introduced two problems in immloader. The first problem was that default loading without PBE enabled no longer was working. Initialization of an STL string parameter in main() for immloader was not done correctly. THis caused immloader to crash whenever started with pbe not enabled. The second problem was that the introduced creation of an IMM runtime class dedicated for supporting IMM PBE, done by immloader, did not screen for the preloader clase when preloading was done from xml-file. The immloader tried to create this new special runtime class already in preloading, which of course failed. Both of these problems are fixed in this patch. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immloadd/imm_loader.cc | 5 +++-- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Highest priority is to verify non interference with 1PBE and 0PBE. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- No interference with 0PBE or 1PBE. 2PBE should work at least to the extent that all normal use cases that work with 1PBE also work with 2PBE. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neel. Timeout on Tuesday Nov 12 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
