Ok I will wait for new V4 patch . -AVM
On 1/19/2017 1:05 PM, Vo Minh Hoang wrote: > Dear Mahesh, > > I checked with newest source code, problem still occur. > So it is in different case. > > Btw, I found some unexpected characters in submitted patch. > So I will send updated file for review. > > Thank you and best regards, > Hoang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vo Minh Hoang [mailto:hoang.m...@dektech.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:17 PM > To: 'A V Mahesh' <mahesh.va...@oracle.com>; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct > failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3 > > Dear Mahesh, > > I will check that again. > I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long. > > Thank you and best regards, > Hoang > > -----Original Message----- > From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM > To: Hoang Vo <hoang.m...@dektech.com.au>; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct > failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3 > > Hi Hoang, > > >>Testing Commands: >>> ----------------- >>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing >>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information > Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to > become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest > the case with > #2253 and confirm the issue still exist. > > -AVM > > On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote: >> Hi Hoang, >> >> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253 >> >> -AVM >> >> >> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote: >>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review >>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s): >>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request >>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): 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): >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything >>> compare to previous version >>> >>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029 >>> Author: Hoang Vo <hoang.m...@dektech.com.au> >>> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700 >>> >>> cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] >>> >>> problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being > unlinked, it >>> might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM > object >>> is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it > will not >>> succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object > existing. >>> Fix: >>> - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and > re-create new >>> one. >>> - Stop timer of removed node. >>> - Update data in patricia trees. >>> >>> >>> Complete diffstat: >>> ------------------ >>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c | 12 ++++++++---- >>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c | 3 ++- >>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c | 12 +++++++++--- >>> 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> >>> Testing Commands: >>> ----------------- >>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing >>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information >>> >>> Testing, Expected Results: >>> -------------------------- >>> Checkpoint information is not change >>> >>> Conditions of Submission: >>> ------------------------- >>> ACK from maintainer >>> >>> Arch Built Started Linux distro >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> mips n n >>> mips64 n n >>> x86 n n >>> x86_64 n n >>> 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.net >> https://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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
