Hi Ramesh! Have you had time to look at this yet?
regards, Anders Widell On 12/22/2015 05:03 PM, Anders Widell wrote: > Summary: base: Add osaf_timerfd_* utility functions [#777] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 777 > Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default(5.0) > Development branch: default > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services n > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries y > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > Note: I plan to contribute a unit test for these functions later. > > changeset 14cd662b79b79166632d17a52584d5cdc2776d25 > Author: Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:52:51 +0100 > > base: Add osaf_timerfd_* utility functions [#777] > > Add the utility functions osaf_timerfd_create(), osaf_timerfd_settime(), > osaf_timerfd_gettime() and osaf_timerfd_close(), which have > functionality > corresponding to the Linux functions timerfd_create(), > timerfd_settime(), > timerfd_gettime() and close(), respectively. > > The main reason for implementing these functions here is that they are > missing in LSB (Linux Standard Base), which means that the use these > Linux > functions are currently prohibited in OpenSAF. As an additional > benefit, the > variants implemented here can never fail (they will abort() on failure), > which means that the user does not have implement code for error > handling. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/core/common/Makefile.am | 1 + > osaf/libs/core/common/include/Makefile.am | 1 + > osaf/libs/core/common/include/osaf_timerfd.h | 131 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > osaf/libs/core/common/osaf_timerfd.c | 264 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 397 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > OpenSAF should build with an LSB compiler. The osaf_timerfd* functions should > work in the same way as the corresponding Linux functions (with the documented > restrictions). > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > OpenSAF builds and starts successfully using an LSB compiler. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Ramesh > > > 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 > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
