The following tests failed and find the 'on top' patch below. Configured 5 SUs(SU1,SU2,SU3 on SC-1 and SU4, SU5 on SC-2) in amf demo with saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs as 2. Unlock all. SU1 as Act and SU2 as Std. Only SU1 and SU2 are instantiated. 1. Lock SU3. No impact. 2. Lock SU2. SU2 gets terminated and SU4 gets instantiated and get Std csi. 3. Lock SC-1. SU1 gets csi removed and terminated. SU4 gets Act csi and SU5 gets instantiated and gets Std csi. 4. Lock SU4 and SU5. Both loses assignment, but they are instantiated. 5. Unlock SU2 and SU3. 6. Unlock SC-1. Ideally, SU1 and SU2 should get instantiated and should get csi assignment. But this failed.
The below 'on top' patch solves it. So, please review it: < diff --git a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc < --- a/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc < +++ b/osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc < @@ -857,8 +857,8 @@ void avd_node_admin_lock_unlock_shutdown < /* Since an SU has come in-service re look at the SG to see if other < * instantiations or terminations need to be done. < */ < - avd_sg_app_su_inst_func(cb, su->sg_of_su); < } < + avd_sg_app_su_inst_func(cb, su->sg_of_su); < < /* get the next SU on the node */ < su = su->avnd_list_su_next; Thanks -Nagu > -----Original Message----- > From: Nagendra Kumar > Sent: 16 July 2014 15:04 > To: hans.fe...@ericsson.com; hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com; Praveen Malviya > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for amfd: instantiate su as > per saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs [#445] > > Additional testing done on top of this: > Configured 5 SUs(SU1,SU2,SU3 on SC-1 and SU4, SU5 on SC-2) in amf demo > with saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs as 2. > Unlock all. SU1 as Act and SU2 as Std. Only SU1 and SU2 are instantiated. > 8. Lock SU3, no impact. > 9. Lock SU2. SU2 csi is removed and terminated. SU4 on SC-2 is instantiated > and > given csi Std. > 10. Lock SC-1. SU1 gets csi removed and terminated. SU4 gets Act csi. SU5 gets > instantiated and get csi Std. > 11. Stop SC-2. SU1 and SU2 gets instantiated. > 12. Unlock SC-1. SU1 gets Act csi. > 13. Unlock SU2. SU2 gets Std csi. > 14. Lock SU2. SU2 get csi removed. > 15. Lock SC-1. SU1 gets csi removed. SU1 and SU2 remain instantiated. > 16. Start SC-2. SU1 and SU2 gets terminated. SU4 and SU5 gets instantiated and > SU4 get Act and SU5 get Std. > > Thanks > -Nagu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nagendra Kumar > > Sent: 15 July 2014 18:40 > > To: hans.fe...@ericsson.com; hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com; Praveen > > Malviya > > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for amfd: instantiate > > su as per saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs [#445] > > > > Summary: amfd: instantiate su as per saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs [#445] > > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #445 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 5bee5534110b639c6579828fd5aa501b05d439fc > > Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com> > > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:27:53 +0530 > > > > amfd: instantiate su as per saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs [#445] As of > > now, Amf > > is not considering in-service su to instantiate as per > > saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs. This patch instantiates su if it is > > eligible. > > It > > also terminates the out of service sus if any other su gets unlocked and > > becomes eligible for getting assignment. > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/db_template.h | 3 + > > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/su.h | 1 + > > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg.cc | 11 +++--- > > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc | 110 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ++++--- > > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/su.cc | 22 +++++++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > Configure demo appl with saAmfSGNumPrefInserviceSUs as 2. > > Configure 3 SUs. > > Unlock all SUs(SU1 Act, SU2 Std). Only 2 demo will get instantiated. > > 1. Lock SU1. SU2 will get Act and SU1 will get terminated > > and SU3 will get instantiated and get Std. > > 2. Unlock SU1 and Lock SU3. SU3 will get csi removed. SU3 will get > > terminated and SU1 will get instantiated and will get Std. > > 3. Lock SU1. SU1 get csi removed, but still instantiated. SU3 remain > > locked and terminated. > > 4. Unlock SU3, SU3 gets instantiated and get Std and SU1 gets terminated. > > 5. Lock SU2. SU2 gets csi removed, but remain instantiated. SU3 gets > > Act. SU3 remain locked and terminated. > > 6. Unlock SU1. SU1 gets instantiated and gets Std and SU2 gets terminated. > > 7. Lock SU3. SU3 gets csi removed and remain instantiated and SU1 > > becomes Act. SU2 remain locked and terminated. > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > As explained above. > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack from peer 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. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? > > Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black > > Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest > > code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensaf-devel mailing list > > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search > up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the > same > software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck > Open Hub! Try it now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
