Ack with two comments: 1) I think we should use nanosecond resolution for time measurements. As per recommendation from Zoran, this could be implemented as a separate ticket, though. 2) Don't add common helper functions in osaf_time.h for reading the system time with a low resolution (seconds). Instead, move these helper functions to ImmModel and remove them after the ticket mentioned above has been implemented.
regards, Anders Widell On 03/16/2016 08:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Summary:imm: changing from system time to monotonic time [#1617] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1617 > Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Anders, Hung > Affected branch(es): latest(5.0) > Development branch: latest > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services n > OpenSAF services y > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 6e89be2a550655417988c77be834e6dfe13349a6 > Author: Neelakanta Reddy > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:59:21 +0530 > > imm: changing from system time to monotonic time [#1617] > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/core/common/include/osaf_time.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 29 > ++++++++++++++++------------- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmSearchOp.hh | 3 ++- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 7 ++++--- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_proc.c | 6 ++++-- > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > set, the OI timeout to a higher value and try to chnage the > system time. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > with this patch, the timeout should take number of seconds > that elapsed, rather than the sytem time seconds. > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785231&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
