Hi AndersBj, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Thursday 21 May 2015 03:26 AM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical > ccbs [#1107] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1107 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel;Zoran > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default(4.7) > Development branch: > > -------------------------------- > 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 a2d0bc92571db5d5aac892cb55e79aed1ad0bb32 > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:48:21 +0200 > > IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs > [#1107] > > The original fix only worked for aborting CCBs where there was an OI > actively involved in processing a ccb callback at the time of the > admin-op. > It did not work for the case where the CCB was currently idle, i.e. > waiting > for the next operation from the om-client and OIs waiting for the next > callback corrsponding to the next om-request. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 34 > +++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Test to include idle ccbs can be done using immcfg in explicit commit mode. > The error response will only be received by the om-client when it tries the > next > operation. For some reason that I do not yet understand the error string > assigned > does not get picked up by immcfg. Could simply be that this is not done by > immcfg > in explicit commit mode. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Invoking the admin-op to abort non-critical ccbs will abort also ccbs that > are idle, but not empty. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel and Zoran. > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
