Hi Ramesh! Have you had a chance to look at this patch yet?
regards, Anders Widell On 07/08/2016 02:39 PM, Anders Widell wrote: > Summary: rde: Change syslog priority from ER to WA when MDS send fails [#1907] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1907 > Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): opensaf-5.0.x, default(5.1) > 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 y > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset d6a6b95b4b5d707a66fb3ddf3549ed1833dd56fe > Author: Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com> > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:17:27 +0200 > > rde: Change syslog priority from ER to WA when MDS send fails [#1907] > > RDE may fail to send MDS messages to its peer, e.g. when the peer node > is > down. This should not be considered an error and therefore the syslog > messages should not have ER priority. The messages are now logged with > WA > priority. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/infrastructure/rde/rde_mds.cc | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Run test cases for system controller failovers. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > The syslog message "Failed to send RDE_MSG_PEER_INFO_RESP(4) to ...", if seen, > should be logged with WARNING priority. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from reviewer(s) > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San > Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries > present their vision of the future. This family event has something for > everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. > http://sdm.link/attshape > _______________________________________________ > 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
