I will push this tomorrow if there are no comments. regards,
Anders Widell On 08/02/2016 09:57 AM, Anders Widell wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
