Hi Vu,
Thanks ,
While testing /usr/bin/logtest , SC-2 standby osaflogd core dumped and
/usr/bin/logtest on SC-1 Active
got Segmentation fault , am I missing any other patch ( i am using
devel published patch only )
Following patches i am using :
1) #2293 (sent by Anders Widel, but not yet pushed)
2) #2258 (v2, sent by Lennart, but not yet pushed yet)
3) #2258 (v4, sent by Vu, but not yet pushed yet)
======================================================================================================
Core was generated by `/usr/lib64/opensaf/osaflogd'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 ckpt_proc_cfg_stream(lgs_cb*, void*) () at
src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:2195
2195 src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc: No such file or directory.
in src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc
(gdb) bt
#0 ckpt_proc_cfg_stream(lgs_cb*, void*) () at
src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:2195
#1 0x00007f12c3e22960 in ckpt_decode_log_struct(lgs_cb*,
ncs_mbcsv_cb_arg*, void*, void*, unsigned int (*)(edu_hdl_tag*,
edu_tkn_tag*, void*, unsigned int*, edu_buf_env_tag*, EDP_OP_TYPE,
EDU_ERR*)) () at src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:950
#2 0x00007f12c3e240dc in ckpt_decode_async_update(lgs_cb*,
ncs_mbcsv_cb_arg*) () at src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:1086
#3 0x00007f12c3e26941 in mbcsv_callback(ncs_mbcsv_cb_arg*) () at
src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:880
#4 0x00007f12c2f25596 in ncs_mbscv_rcv_decode () from
/usr/lib/../lib64/libopensaf_core.so.0
#5 0x00007f12c2f25766 in ncs_mbcsv_rcv_async_update () from
/usr/lib/../lib64/libopensaf_core.so.0
#6 0x00007f12c2f2c370 in mbcsv_process_events () from
/usr/lib/../lib64/libopensaf_core.so.0
#7 0x00007f12c2f2c4db in mbcsv_hdl_dispatch_all () from
/usr/lib/../lib64/libopensaf_core.so.0
#8 0x00007f12c2f26ce2 in mbcsv_process_dispatch_request () at
src/mbc/mbcsv_api.c:423
#9 0x00007f12c3e2396e in lgs_mbcsv_dispatch(unsigned int) () at
src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc:327
#10 0x00007f12c3e009f2 in main () at src/log/logd/lgs_main.cc:583
(gdb)
======================================================================================================
Feb 22 10:37:06 SC-1 osafimmnd[4020]: NO Invalid error reported
implementer 'safLogService', Ccb 161 will be aborted
Feb 22 10:37:06 SC-1 osafimmnd[4020]: NO Ccb 161 aborted in COMPLETED
processing (validation)
Feb 22 10:37:06 SC-1 osafimmnd[4020]: NO Ccb 161 ABORTED (immcfg_SC-1_5394)
Add values Fail
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000055555556929a in read_and_compare.isra.7 () at
src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c:1891
1891 src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c: No such file or directory.
in src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c
(gdb) Feb 22 10:37:07 SC-1 sshd[5298]: Accepted keyboard-interactive/pam
for root from 10.176.178.22 port 51945 ssh2
bt
#0 0x000055555556929a in read_and_compare.isra.7 () at
src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c:1891
#1 0x0000555555569bbb in check_logRecordDestinationConfigurationEmpty
() at src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c:2179
#2 0x0000555555573495 in run_test_case ()
#3 0x0000555555573934 in test_run ()
#4 0x000055555555c7cd in main () at src/log/apitest/logtest.c:569
(gdb)
======================================================================================================
-AVM
On 2/22/2017 9:48 AM, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Mahesh,
>
> I send them in attachment instead, and name them in the order.
> I just pull the latest code, and apply them without getting any hunk error.
>
> Please try with them, and let me know if you see any problem.
>
> Regards, Vu
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:09 AM
>> To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>;
>> lennart.l...@ericsson.com; canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au
>> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 3] Review Request for log: add alternative
>> destinations of log records [#2258] V4
>>
>> Hi Vu,
>>
>> I did follow that still i get Hunk #2 FAILED even on today's staging
>>
>> ==============================================================
>> ==================
>>
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]# patch -p1 <2293
>> patching file src/base/Makefile.am
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 33 (offset 1 line).
>> Hunk #3 succeeded at 183 (offset 1 line).
>> patching file src/base/file_descriptor.cc
>> patching file src/base/file_descriptor.h
>> patching file src/base/tests/unix_socket_test.cc
>> patching file src/base/unix_client_socket.cc
>> patching file src/base/unix_server_socket.cc
>> patching file src/base/unix_socket.cc
>> patching file src/base/unix_socket.h
>>
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]# patch -p1 <2258-1
>> patching file src/log/Makefile.am
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 71 (offset -1 lines).
>> patching file src/log/config/logsv_classes.xml
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 147.
>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>> src/log/config/logsv_classes.xml.rej
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_config.cc
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 35 (offset -5 lines).
>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 705.
>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 971.
>> 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.cc.rej
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_config.h
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 304.
>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.h.rej
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_dest.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_dest.h
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_evt.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_imm.cc
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 45.
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 235 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 877.
>> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1273 (offset -20 lines).
>> Hunk #5 succeeded at 1404 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #6 succeeded at 1449 (offset -20 lines).
>> Hunk #7 succeeded at 2032 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #8 FAILED at 2181.
>> Hunk #9 succeeded at 2271 (offset -54 lines).
>> Hunk #10 succeeded at 2387 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #11 succeeded at 2377 (offset -54 lines).
>> Hunk #12 succeeded at 2478 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #13 succeeded at 2684 (offset -54 lines).
>> Hunk #14 succeeded at 2821 (offset -1 lines).
>> 3 out of 14 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>> src/log/logd/lgs_imm.cc.rej
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_main.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.h
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v5.cc
>> Hunk #3 succeeded at 133 (offset -1 lines).
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.h
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_stream.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_stream.h
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_util.cc
>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_util.h
>>
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]# patch -p1 <2258-2
>> patching file src/log/Makefile.am
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 180 (offset -3 lines).
>> patching file src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 1923.
>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 1979.
>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 2067.
>> Hunk #4 FAILED at 2094.
>> 4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>> src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c.rej
>> patching file src/log/apitest/tet_cfg_destination.c
>>
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]# patch -p1 <2258-3
>> patching file src/log/Makefile
>> patching file src/log/Makefile.am
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 80 (offset -1 lines).
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 217 (offset -2 lines).
>> patching file src/log/tests/Makefile
>> patching file src/log/tests/lgs_dest_test.cc
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]# vi
>> src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c.rej
>> [root@dhcp-hyd-scp-5fl-10-176-177-96 staging]#
>>
>> ==============================================================
>> ========================
>>
>> -AVM
>>
>> On 2/21/2017 3:53 PM, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>> Hi Mahesh,
>>>
>>> As I has mentioned in below:
>>>>> To run the test, this patch has dependent on following patches:
>>>>> 1) #2293 (sent by Anders Widel, but not yet pushed)
>>>>> 2) #2258 (v2, sent by Lennart, but not yet pushed yet)
>>> So, you need to apply #2293 first, then #2258 which sent by Lennart
>>> yesterday, then mine.
>>>
>>> Regards, Vu
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:10 PM
>>>> To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>;
>>>> lennart.l...@ericsson.com; canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au
>>>> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 3] Review Request for log: add alternative
>>>> destinations of log records [#2258] V4
>>>>
>>>> Hi Vu,
>>>>
>>>> Is this applies on top of log #2146 - V4 , I see both #tickets
> has
>>>> version changes ?
>>>>
>>>> in which order i need to apply ( #2146 & #2258 ) or (#2258 &
> #2146).
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> patching file src/log/Makefile.am
>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 72.
>>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 120.
>>>> 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> src/log/Makefile.am.rej
>>>> patching file src/log/config/logsv_classes.xml
>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 147.
>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>>> src/log/config/logsv_classes.xml.rej
>>>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_config.cc
>>>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 35 (offset -5 lines).
>>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 705.
>>>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 971.
>>>> 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.cc.rej
>>>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_config.h
>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 304.
>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.h.rej
>>>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_dest.cc
>>>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_dest.h
>>>> patching file src/log/logd/lgs_evt.cc
>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
>>>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 30 with fuzz 2 (offset 2 lines).
>>>> Hunk #3 succeeded at 1282 (offset 45 lines).
>>>> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1300 (offset 2 lines).
>>>> 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_evt.cc.rej
>>>>
>>>>
>> ==============================================================
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> -AVM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2017 3:03 PM, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>>>> Summary: log: add alternative destinations of log records [#2258]
>>>>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #2258
>>>>> Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Canh, Mahesh
>>>>> Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
>>>>> 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 n
>>>>> OpenSAF services y
>>>>> Core libraries n
>>>>> Samples n
>>>>> Tests y
>>>>> Other n
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>> To run the test, this patch has dependent on following patches:
>>>>> 1) #2293 (sent by Anders Widel, but not yet pushed)
>>>>> 2) #2258 (v2, sent by Lennart, but not yet pushed yet)
>>>>>
>>>>> changeset d74aaf3025c99cade3165a15831124548f4d85bd
>>>>> Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:36:00 +0700
>>>>>
>>>>> log: add alternative destinations of log records [#2258]
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are major info, detailed info will be added to PR doc soon. 1)
>>>> Add
>>>>> attribute "saLogRecordDestination" to log stream. 2) Add Local
>>>> socket
>>>>> destintion handler 3) Integrate into first increment made by Lennart
>>>>>
>>>>> changeset 4bae27a478c235df3058f43c92d3a5483233b01d
>>>>> Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:07:09 +0700
>>>>>
>>>>> log: add UML test case to verify alternative destination [#2258]
>>>>>
>>>>> Major changes: 1) Modify Lennart's test cases because enhancing
>>>> destination
>>>>> configuration validation rules. 2) Add test suite #17 to verify
>>>> alternative
>>>>> destination
>>>>>
>>>>> changeset bc375725fed22bb4f8cb3ae3df5f96fb9d281efb
>>>>> Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:22:13 +0700
>>>>>
>>>>> log: add unit tests to verify interfaces provided by destination
>>>> handler
>>>>> [#2258]
>>>>>
>>>>> Unit tests to verify major interfaces: 1) CfgDestination() 2)
>>>>> WriteToDestination()
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Added Files:
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> src/log/apitest/tet_cfg_destination.c
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_dest.cc
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_dest.h
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.cc
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.h
>>>>> src/log/tests/lgs_dest_test.cc
>>>>> src/log/tests/Makefile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Complete diffstat:
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> src/log/Makefile | 4 +
>>>>> src/log/Makefile.am | 31 +++++-
>>>>> src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c | 8 +-
>>>>> src/log/apitest/tet_cfg_destination.c | 483
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/config/logsv_classes.xml | 7 +-
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.cc | 169
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_config.h | 3 +-
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_dest.cc | 707
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> +++++++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_dest.h | 576
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_evt.cc | 33 ++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_imm.cc | 202
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_main.cc | 8 +
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.cc | 103 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv.h | 6 +-
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v5.cc | 10 +
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.cc | 177
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_mbcsv_v7.h | 67 +++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_stream.cc | 60 +++++++++++-
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_stream.h | 16 +++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_util.cc | 63 ++++++++++++
>>>>> src/log/logd/lgs_util.h | 11 +-
>>>>> src/log/tests/Makefile | 20 +++
>>>>> src/log/tests/lgs_dest_test.cc | 209
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 23 files changed, 2896 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing Commands:
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> Run UML test suite #17
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing, Expected Results:
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> All test passed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Conditions of Submission:
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>> <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
