Hi Mathi / Anders I’d like to add this to section 4.2 Implementation Notes of the CLM PR.
* A CLM handle held by a client may become invalidated and ERR_BAD_HANDLE will be returned to the client. For example, after recovery from a headless state and reception of ERR_BAD_HANDLE, each CLM client will need to call saClmInitialize again to obtain a new CLM handle. Thanks Gary On 19/01/2016, 11:29 PM, "Anders Widell" <[email protected]> wrote: >Ack for the series (code review only). > >regards, >Anders Widell > >On 01/07/2016 05:38 AM, Gary Lee wrote: >> Summary: clm: support simultaneous reboot of both controller nodes [#1646] >> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1646 >> Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi, Anders W >> Pull request to: >> Affected branch(es): 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 n >> OpenSAF services n >> Core libraries y >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset 44df7b651431e306911e9b327d182e86ce3022fb >> Author: Gary Lee <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:27:12 +1100 >> >> clma: send BAD_HANDLE to all clients if both controller nodes are >> unavailable [#1646] >> >> If we detect clmd is unavailable on both controller nodes, then set >> clma_cb.clms_reinit_required as true. >> >> Once an instance of clmd recovers, notify all clients that their CLM >> handle >> is stale by returning BAD_HANDLE. Each client will need to call >> saClmInitialize again. >> >> changeset b61f9fb02800dc6878dfb41b7d24c8a798149ee0 >> Author: Gary Lee <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:27:20 +1100 >> >> clm nodeagent: send nodeup again when clms is available after both >> controllers are down [#1646] >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/clma/clma.h | 2 ++ >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/clma/clma_api.c | 30 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/clma/clma_mds.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> osaf/libs/agents/saf/clma/clma_util.c | 2 ++ >> osaf/services/saf/clmsv/nodeagent/main.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> Apply "headless feature" patches for other services >> Reboot both controllers >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> Once a controller recovers, a CLM client should be signalled to call >> saClmDispatch() and >> receive SA_AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> >> >> >> 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
