Summary: IMM: Build sReverseRefsNoDanglingMMap in ImmModl::objectSync [#1381] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1381 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran; Hung Pull request to: Affected branch(es): 4.5; 4.6; default(4.7) Development branch: 4.5
-------------------------------- 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 18f4d1d50a9c415ad896aa7a34e69d3207b07a0e Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:45:26 +0200 IMM: Build sReverseRefsNoDanglingMMap in ImmModl::objectSync [#1381] Essentially the same code sections that exist in ImmModel::ccbObjectCreate for adding to the sReverseRefsNoDanglingMMap have been cloned to ImmModel::objectSync. The relation is also commented in both places to refer to each other. The code is not identical though since the objectSync variant has no CCB. Still the code may be better to break out into a subfunction in ImmModel called from both places. The function would need to be parameterized to cope with the difference. No test case has been added to immomtest/immoitest for the problem fixed here because the problem is in sync and thus not an API function test. The test to provoke the problem is described in the ticket though and regression test for this issue can be created at higher level testing. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- See the ticket. You need a test class that has at least one NO_DANGLING reference attribute. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Without this patch it is possible to delete an object that has other objects with NO_DANGLING pointed to it. The delete may succed at some nodes and not others depending on which nodes have been synced *after* the creation of the strong (no dangling reference). Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neel, Zoran and Hung. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
