Summary: amfd: do not assign dependent csi if any sponsor csi is unassigned
[#687]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #687
Peer Reviewer(s): AMF contributors
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): All
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):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 74136004164346c0d8e82e369ad7be85957e4efe
Author: praveen.malv...@oracle.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:51:46 +0530
amfd: do not assign dependent csi if any sponsor csi is unassigned
[#687]
A CSI is configured with CSI dependency on multiple sponsor CSIs. When
user
UNLOCKs SUs, AMF is assigning the dependent CSI in the case when only
some
sponsors are assigned.
Even if one sponsor is unassigned, AMF should not assign dependent CSI.
In
this particular issue, one sponsor remained unassigned because
compcsType
was not configured for the csType of unassigned sponsor. At present, AMF
does not have mechanism to strictly check the configuration from
assignment
perspective.
AMF will not assign dependent CSI if any sponsor CSI is unassigned.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/csi.cc | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/csi.h | 1 +
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc | 40
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Configuration(687.xml) is uploaded in the ticket and also steps to
reproduce.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Now AMF is not assigning dependent csi.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from any reviewer.
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
