Ack with comment. The ticket number is still not surrounded with square brackets [#581] in the first line of the commit message.
regards, Anders Widell 2013-12-10 10:37, Hans Nordeback skrev: > Summary: base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit [#581] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 581 > Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW,HansF,Ramesh > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default(4.4) > Development branch: default > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services n > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries y > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset 8d36c7f02507201c39204ad7afc7574bb6cdc4a0 > Author: Hans Nordeback <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:24:37 +0100 > > base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 > > use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit. The change was done due to > that > exit() is not thread safe, see e.g. ticket #651. To make it possible to > dump > e.g. coverage data on termination a weak reference to __gcov_flush has > been > added. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/core/common/daemon.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 y y > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel