Summary: amfd: Standby controller reboots if adding additional SI in N+M model [#1457] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1457 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N, Nagu, Praveen Pull request to: Affected branch(es): 4.5, 4.6, default 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 1736c73e54ff1d3dd9cec016887dde5ea4289df9 Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:45:43 +1000 amfd: Standby controller reboots if adding additional SI in N+M model [#1457] As N+M SU(s) are unlocked and having assignment, if dynamically adding an SI (without specified saAmfSIAdminState) that causes the standby controller reboots If additional SI is added without specified saAmfSIAdminState, the admin state will be set as UNLOCKED as default. And if the configuration has enough capability to establish new assignment for additional SI, the active amfd will checkpoint the current active assignment with standby amfd in the flow of CCB. Sometimes, this checkpoint comes to standby amfd before standby amfd creates additional SI by CCB apply. Therfore, standby amfd can't find the SI in checkpoint, then node reboots by a false assert. In AMF PR, 7.1.3 Add an SI in an SG without locking SG, the additonal SI should be in admin LOCKED state while it's being added. The patch adds validation for admin state of additional SI. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/si.cc | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- - TC1: Repeat the test described in ticket #1457 - TC2: Repeat the same test with slight change in add_SIc.xml, which specifies SaAmfSIAdminState as 2 Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- - TC1: CCB is rejected - TC2: CCB succeeds, then unlocking SI succeeds 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
