Summary: clm: imm reinit mechanism shall check for impl_set flag in BAD_OPER scenarios [#1067] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1067 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 4.4.x, 4.5.x, default 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 y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- The CLM mechanism to retry with IMM was not expecting a BAD_OPERATION error code. This opened up a path that needs to check for the implementer_set flag being true before attempting any rtupdate on node admin status. changeset e2b9153ad15300e0934e54bbea2978adee828702 Author: Mathivanan N.P.<[email protected]> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:34:37 -0400 clm: imm reinit mechanism shall check for impl_set flag in BAD_OPER scenarios [#1067] It is possible that IMM (probably because of 1057) returns BAD_OPER. This requires hardening of the CLM imm reinit mechanism when error such as BAD_OPER is returned. As a part of admin-state updates, clm need to check for impl_set flag before attempting rtobject update. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_imm.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Induce BAD_OPER for node_admin status rt update. The code path gets hit wherein the update is attempted without checking for implementer set flag. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Same as Above. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neel. 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 excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
