Hi Mathi, Reviewed the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Saturday 13 September 2014 12:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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
