Hi Neel, I think we also need to remove any duplication under SU level and Component Level also. Example we have the original campaign that have: - Rolling on SCs - ForModify on SU1, SU2 that are hosted on PLs - ForAddRemoved on SU1, SU2.
Which this patch, the result campaign will have AU/DU on SCs/SU1/SU2/SU1/SU2. Which means we have redundant/unnecessary lock/unlock of SU1/SU2 (it's enough to just lock/unlock them only once). How do you think? /Tai Quoting Neelakanta Reddy <reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com>: > Hi All, > > Here the defect no is #2209 not #2214 > > Thanks, > Neel. > > On 2016/12/02 04:22 PM, reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com wrote: >> Summary: smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in >> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214] >> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2214 >> Peer Reviewer(s): Rafael, Lennart, tai >> Affected branch(es): 5.0.x, 5.1.x, 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): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset 2becbe07a7f92d70f928e23dcd6b0a6576c8e22a >> Author: Neelakanta Reddy <reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com> >> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0530 >> >> smf:Allow optimization at node level forAddRemove in >> mergeStepIntoSingle[#2214] >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc | 40 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> campaign must contain rolling and singlestep upgrade with AU/SU node >> level >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> Campaign should not fail >> >> 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. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensaf-devel mailing list >> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
