Hi Neelakanta,

Find my answers inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:51 AM
To: Zoran Milinkovic
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: classify abort error 
strings and prefix existing error strings [#744]

Hi Zoran,

Reviewed and tested the patch.
Following are the comments:

1. setCcbErrorString to be added :

ImmModel::ccbObjDelContinuation

  if(omuti == ccb->mMutations.end()) {
         LOG_WA("object '%s' Not found in ccb - aborting ccb",
             objectName.c_str());
         if(ccb->mVeto == SA_AIS_OK) {
             ccb->mVeto = SA_AIS_ERR_FAILED_OPERATION;

[Zoran] Done in the new patch

2. In immnd_evt_proc_ccb_compl_rsp
call immModel_ccbGrabErrStrings after ccb_abort

   errStrings = immModel_ccbGrabErrStrings(cb, 
evt->info.ccbUpcallRsp.ccbId);
   TRACE("Abort in immnd_evt_proc_ccb_compl_rsp reqConn: %u", reqConn);
    /*err != SA_AIS_OK => generate SaImmOiCcbAbortCallbackT upcall
           for all local implementers involved in the Ccb */
    immnd_evt_ccb_abort(cb, evt->info.ccbUpcallRsp.ccbId, NULL, NULL);

[Zoran] Done in the new patch

3.  The following functions the error strings are not sent to IMMA OM in the 
reply from IMMND


immnd_evt_ccb_augment_init
[Zoran] error string is attached to the main CCB

immnd_evt_proc_ccb_apply
[Zoran] ccb_apply already sends error strings. I didn't change anything

immnd_evt_proc_ccb_finalize
[Zoran] Fixed in the new patch

4. send reply needs to be modified to include if error strings are added 
in immModel_ccbObjModifyContinuation/immModel_ccbObjCreateContinuation

immnd_evt_proc_ccb_obj_modify_rsp
immnd_evt_proc_ccb_obj_create_rsp

[Zoran] Fixed in the new patch.
I created a new error string and attached to the existing error string

Thanks,
Zoran

/Neel.


On Friday 28 August 2015 07:36 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote:
> Summary: imm: classify abort error strings and prefix existing error strings 
> [#744]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 744
> Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Hung
> Pull request to: Zoran
> Affected branch(es): default(4.7)
> Development branch: default(4.7)
>
> --------------------------------
> 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 908863d72ab2ad649adfefd9b5b5930ac5487ca7
> Author:       Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:00:52 +0200
>
>       imm: classify abort error strings and prefix existing error strings 
> [#744]
>
>       The patch set prefix "IMM:" to all error string that come from IMM. 
> Based on
>       CCB abort type (resource or validation abort), error strings are 
> prefixed
>       with "IMM: Resource abort:" or "IMM: Validation abort:"
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
>   osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc  |  126 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>   osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.hh  |    5 +++++
>   osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c  |   48 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_init.h |    6 ++++++
>   4 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> Test IMM that IMM returns correct error strings. Testing should be mostly 
> focused on testing error strings when CCB is aborted.
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Ack from Neelakanta, Hung and Anders
>
>
> 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.
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog!
Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools
in one place.
SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to