Hi, Please help to review this patch.
Thanks, Minh On 14/09/16 12:32, Minh Hon Chau wrote: > Summary: AMFD: Sync all nodes presence state before starting application > assignment [#1988] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1988 > Peer Reviewer(s): AMF devs > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es): 5.1, 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 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 51c441d4c9af23c11fa474c9de1458bda0a44fd1 > Author: minh-chau <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:56:06 +1000 > > AMFD: Sync all nodes presence state before starting application > assignment > [#1988] > > In scenario of admin continuation after headless, if > saAmfClusterStartupTimeout configures with a pretty small value, then > the > admin continuation will initiate when saAmfClusterStartupTimeout > expires but > the SU(s) are still in OUT OF SERVICE. The eventual result is failure of > admin operation after headless. > > When saAmfClusterStartupTimeout expires, AMFD needs: . ensure that all > veteran nodes finish joining cluster. . if any veteran nodes comes > after the > saAmfClusterStartupTimeout's expiry, this veteran will be reboot. . > signal > all veteran AMFND(s) that application assignment can be started. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/cluster.cc | 15 +++++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ndfsm.cc | 36 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/clm.cc | 2 -- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/di.cc | 9 ++++----- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/term.cc | 6 ++++-- > 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 18 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
