Summary: amfnd: ignore unwanted events during node failover [#1249]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1249
Peer Reviewer(s): hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com, praveen.malv...@oracle.com
Pull request to:
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 6c98d2d5908f74e714e6a374f240be7511f83a8c
Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:57:40 +0530
amfnd: ignore unwanted events during node failover [#1249] Amfnd is
asserting when it gets instantiate success event during node failover.
This
was done in the assumption that no other event(other than cleanup,
cleanup
succ or fail) is expected to come during node failover. But there may be
scenarios, where such events can come, so it is not relevant for Amfnd
to
assert. Rather Amfnd can ignore them.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/clc.cc | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Start two controllers(SC-1, SC-2) and one payload(PL-3).
Host two PI SUs, SU1(component recovery is node failover) on PL-3 and SU2 on
SC-2.
Host two NPI SUs SU1 on PL-3 and SU2 on SC-2.
Test Case: 1:
a. Unlock PI SUs.
b. Unlock NPI SU1 and keep 5 seconds delay in instantiate script.
c. Kill component in SU1 so that node failover starts.
Test Case: 2:
After Test Case 1, PL-3 starts, check whether NPI Sus should be
assigned.
Test Case: 3:
After TC1 and TC2, Unlock another SU2 and check the assignments.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Test Case: 1:
Amfnd shouldn't crash. Node should reboot after cleaning
up all the application components.
Test Case: 2:
/etc/init.d/opensafd status
should return SUSI of NPI SU1.
Test Case: 2:
/etc/init.d/opensafd status
should return SUSI of NPI SU2.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
