Summary: amfd: return try_again to sg admin unlock-in if any su is in terminating state [#854] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #854 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 485abc196ffe517653824f3df1185536eaa94a28 Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:26:54 +0530 amfd: return try_again to sg admin unlock-in if any su is in terminating state [#854] Problem: SG admin lock-in return immediately. Next admin unlock-in also succeed even if sus are not terminated yet. Analysis: If Amf could return try again to unlock-in admin op, then another admin operation could be avoided. Fix: Return try again for subsequent admin op because previous has not been completed yet. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg.cc | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1. Start demo applications. 2. amf-adm lock safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1; amf-adm lock-in safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 3. Keep gdb in terminate callback. 4. amf-adm unlock-in safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1; Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- #4 step return with try again. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from reviewers 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