Summary: ntfa: Lower mds priority for initialize msg [#1818]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1818
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Praveen
Pull request to: Praveen
Affected branch(es): all active branches
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):
---------------------------------------------
 <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>

changeset fd140daad35f367f62bbc400d20e4e101b708b8c
Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2016 00:02:23 +1000

        ntfa: Lower mds priority for initialize msg [#1818]

        When running ntftest suite, there's an issue that the messages of 
previous
        test coming after some of messages of current test. This issue can also
        happen in real application.

        The patch lowers mds priority of initialize msg so that the other 
messages
        have a chance to reach ntf server earlier. This is not a complete 
solution,
        since there could be a race condition between the other messages not 
just
        only with initialize messages. If it happens, priority of those 
messages can
        be considered in which race condition happens.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_mds.c |  9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
 <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>>


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
 <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>>


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to