Summary: amf: change the way amfd handle amfnd down [#2891]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2891
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Gary, Minh, Nagu
Pull request to: Hans, Gary, Minh, Nagu
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2891
Base revision: 16ae837cd07d61f931b1b07fbe84af985ca8a419
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thuantr/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
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
revision 266c110b43c9cccb2ea6dd54b4461f3d214d7799
Author: thuan.tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:29:07 +0700
amf: change the way amfd handle amfnd down [#2891]
There is a case that after AMFD send reboot order due to “out of sync window”.
AMFD receive CLM track callback but node is not AMF member yet and delete node.
Later AMFND MDS down will do nothing since it cannot find the node.
When node reboot up, AMFD continue use old msg_id counter send to AMFND
cause messasge ID mismatch in AMFND then AMFND order reboot itself node.
Also, if AMFND already synced info after headless to active AMFD,
then node failover actions need consider for this AMFND down.
Use a flag synced_headless for node, turn it true if susi recreate,
then in AMFND down handler, searching the node_id in node_name_db.
If found, check if need do node failover base on synced_headless flag.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/amf/amfd/ndfsm.cc | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
src/amf/amfd/node.cc | 1 +
src/amf/amfd/node.h | 1 +
src/amf/amfd/siass.cc | 1 +
4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
N/A
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
N/A
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
ACK by 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
