Summary: amfnd: fix re-instantiation of failed component [#844]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): <<IF ANY LIST THE #>>
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F., Nagendra
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 n
OpenSAF services y
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
Please see the commit log below
changeset 33639053eeddf8f13b1dca9d2fe2c812d06ff72f
Author: praveen.malv...@oracle.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:09:46 +0530
amfnd: fix re-instantiation of failed component [#844]
Problem: AMF indefinitely tries to instantiate a component for which
instantiate script is not found.
Reason: If AMF tries to instantiate a component and it does not found
the
instantiate script for the component, it cleans up it. After successful
cleanup, AMF retries to instantiate the component based on the value of
attribute saAmfNumMaxInstantiateWithoutDelay. In the present case AMF
resets
current retry count for re-instantiation after successful clean up of
component. Due to this, AMF keeps on reinstantiating the component
indefinitely.
Fix: Fix ensures that current no. of retries to instantiate should not
go
beyond saAmfNumMaxInstantiateWithoutDelay.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/clc.cc | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
As per ticket description.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
component and SU moves to instantiation
failed state.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Hans or Nagendra.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
