Summary: amfd: instantiate mw sus when node is joining [#863] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #863 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F, Hans N< praveen Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): All Development branch: Default
-------------------------------- 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): --------------------------------------------- <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> changeset bd869e8b3ef2846239b9b3a8fa9d6ff509934f9e Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:57:02 +0530 amfd: instantiate mw sus when node is joining [#863] Problem: When mw su is in locked-in state and opensaf is started, amfnd hangs. When mw su is unlocked-in, amfnd still doesn't instantiate the mw su. Analysis: Amfd doesn't send instantiate message to amfnd because su is not in enabled state and node is not in present state. Fix: Amfd should send instantiate message to amfnd for mw su unlock-in command. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/su.cc | 11 +++++++++-- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1. Start controller and one payload. 2. amf-adm lock safSu=PL-3\,safSg=NoRed\,safApp=OpenSAF 3. amf-adm lock-in safSu=PL-3\,safSg=NoRed\,safApp=OpenSAF 4. Stop payload and start payload. 2. amf-adm unlock safSu=PL-3\,safSg=NoRed\,safApp=OpenSAF 3. amf-adm unlock-in safSu=PL-3\,safSg=NoRed\,safApp=OpenSAF Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Payload joins and mw sus are instantiated. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from maintainers 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel