Summary: amf: Support AMF configurations containing more than two OpenSAF 2N
SUs [#79]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 79
Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Hans, Nagendra, Praveen
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 y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 9bdcd568e996b2be32f92d6394e2d5480c85aade
Author: Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:10:04 +0100
amf: Support AMF configurations containing more than two OpenSAF 2N SUs
[#79]
Add support for configuring the system with more than two OpenSAF 2N
SUs. In
particular, this means that all OpenSAF directors must support starting
up
and running without (initially) getting any assignment from AMF.
Locking of
an OpenSAF 2N SU is currently not supported on a system configured with
more
than two OpenSAF 2N SUs.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/clm.cc | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/amfd.h | 2 ++
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/cb.h | 1 +
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/role.h | 2 ++
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/main.cc | 78
++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ndfsm.cc | 9 +++++++--
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc | 7 +------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/role.cc | 86
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sgproc.cc | 11 ++++++++++-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/clm.cc | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
10 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Configure the system with more than two controller nodes. The system should work
as normal.
Note: you need all the patches for ticket [#79] in order to run the system with
more than two controller nodes. However, it should also be possible to apply the
patches for just one service and test legacy functionality (i.e. run regression
tests).
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
The system should work both when configured with two system controllers (and
possibly some payload nodes), as well as with a configuration where all nodes
are configured as controller nodes.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from at least three 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
