Hi all,
If the patch look ok to you, I would like to push it tomorrow.
I have updated the README and PR doc at the below links, if you have
time please have a look.
https://sourceforge.net/p/opensaf/tickets/_discuss/thread/77619155/0a9b/attachment/2757_README.diff
https://sourceforge.net/p/opensaf/tickets/_discuss/thread/5671255e/16a4/attachment/OpenSAF_NTFSv_PR_2735.odt
Thanks,
Minh
On 24/01/18 12:49, minh.c...@dektech.com.au wrote:
Hi Lennart,
I tested the APIs between versions with/without the changes. I will send
out for review the README and PR change after the code review is done. One
limitation is that both active and standby require the patches to work.
Thanks,
Minh
Hi Minh
Ack. I have not tested much
Have you tested using the reader API while running old version on standby
and new version on active and vice versa (upgrade case)? Limitations?
PR documentation update?
Thanks
Lennart
-----Original Message-----
From: Minh Hon Chau
Sent: den 22 januari 2018 05:19
To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>;
srinivas.mangip...@oracle.com; Canh Van Truong
<canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au>
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Minh Hon Chau
<minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Review Request for ntf: Checkpoint and cold sync
reader information [#2757]
Summary: ntfd: Checkpoint reader to the standby when processes reader
API requests [#2757]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2757
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Srinivas, Canh
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2757
Base revision: ee105cb3bf44eee4e8785e3de7d24f907641e2ab
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/review
--------------------------------
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
NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision 74da3370accfa44a34a7abf9830ceaeae3ab5d4f
Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:08:59 +1100
ntftest: Add new test cases of suite 41 for cold sync and checkpoint of
reader
APIs [#2757]
revision ad38745b1c411bc52905725281c84c69e4147fef
Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:03:42 +1100
ntfd: Cold sync reader to the standby ntfd after rebooting the standby
controller [#2757]
Assumpt that the reader information is updated to the standby ntfd via
checkpoint
upon reception of reader APIs requests. However, if the standby
controller
reboots
and comes up, the standby ntfd still has none of readers information
which is
available at the active ntfd. Now if a switchover happens, the new
active will
not
be able to process the reader APIs requests with existing reader
handles.
This patch adds reader information as part of cold sync
revision 47cf18850e6819c2db4642eb1e639aff5f0d8282
Author:Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date:Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:12:00 +1100
ntfd: Checkpoint reader to the standby when processes reader API
requests
[#2757]
When active ntfd receives reader API requests: ReaderIntialize,
ReadNext,
ReadFinalize, active ntfd does not update the readers information to the
standby. Thus, either switchover or failover happens, the client can not
continue to use the reader APIs, because there is no such reader
information
still available in the new active after switchover.
The patch does checkpoint reader information to the standby when
completes
processing reader APIs request.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/ntf/agent/ntfa_mds.c | 51 +--
src/ntf/apitest/tet_coldsync.c | 690
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
src/ntf/common/ntfsv_enc_dec.c | 88 +++++-
src/ntf/common/ntfsv_enc_dec.h | 12 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.cc | 145 +++++++--
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.h | 17 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfClient.cc | 68 +++-
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfClient.h | 11 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfLogger.cc | 2 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfReader.cc | 84 +++--
src/ntf/ntfd/NtfReader.h | 13 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.c | 105 +++++++
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.h | 25 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_evt.c | 14 +-
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.c | 287 ++++++++++++++---
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.h | 16 +
src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mds.c | 42 +--
17 files changed, 1430 insertions(+), 240 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Run all test cases of suite 41, and legacy suites
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
All pass
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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name,
user.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
