Hi Thuan, I'm reviewing the patch now. I haven't checked yet but do you know if the mds apitests cover this case sending large multicast messages? /Thanks HansN
-----Original Message----- From: Tran Thuan <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au> Sent: den 2 maj 2019 05:56 To: Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033] V3 Hi Hans, Do you have any further comment? Can we push the patch? Best Regards, ThuanTr -----Original Message----- From: Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 4:11 PM To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; 'Hans Nordebäck' <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>; 'Thuan Tran' <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033] V3 Hi, ack from me (code review) Thanks Minh On 25/4/19 9:33 pm, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi Hans, > > Probably you were looking at code that included this Thuan's patch. > > In legacy code, only mdtm_sendto() is called inside the function > mdtm_frag_and_send(). > > Regards, Vu > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com> >> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:10 PM >> To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Thuan Tran >> <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>; Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast >> fragmented messages [#3033] V3 >> >> >> Hi Vu, >> It seems mdtm_mcast_sendto is used in mdtm_frag_and_send, at >> MDS_SENDTYPE_BCAST/BR Hans -----Original Message----- >> From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> >> Sent: den 25 april 2019 12:20 >> To: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>; Thuan Tran >> <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>; Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast >> fragmented messages [#3033] V3 >> >> Hi Hans, >> >> See my responses inline. >> >> Regards, Vu >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:28 PM >>> To: Thuan Tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen >>> <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Minh Hon Chau >> <minh.c...@dektech.com.au> >>> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for mds: support multicast >>> fragmented messages [#3033] V3 >>> >>> Hi Vu and Thuan, >>> >>> a few question, is the text in the ticket description correct? E.g >>> it says unicast is used if a multicast message is fragmented, (I >>> think multicast still is used >>> >>> to send the fragments), this is what you mean with 2 different channels? >>> (only one socket is used, BSRsock), >> [Vu] Yes. Unicast is used to send fragmented messages. Here is the >> current logic in case of sending a large package: >> Iterate over destinations { // mcm_pvt_process_svc_bcast_common() @ >> mds_c_sndrcv.c >> 1) Fragment the package // mdtm_frag_and_send() @ mds_dt_tipc.c >> 2) Unicast to a specific adest // mdtm_sendto() @ >> mds_dt_tipc.c >> 4) Continue with next adest >> } >> >>> The problem stated is sending one large multicast message and then >>> several smaller multicast messages, have you checked the >>> >>> fragment re-assembly part of the common code? >> [Vu] Yes. At the receive side, if msg is fragmented, mds will not >> forward to upper layer until all fragmented msgs are collected. >> If the message is not fragmented, mds will transfer the msg to upper >> right away. >> >> I checked with TIPC guys here, and he said that TIPC does not >> guarantee the order if we send msgs in different channels (unicast vs mcast). >> >>> /BR Hans >>> >>> >>> On 2019-04-24 13:06, thuan.tran wrote: >>>> Summary: mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033] Review >>>> request for Ticket(s): 3033 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Minh, Vu Pull >>>> request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected >>>> branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-3033 Base revision: >>>> 7916ac316e86478c621c8359cf2aca4886288a38 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers >>>> >>>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>> N/A >>>> >>>> revision 568f09774f936506f5e05e03813fa572af0fe0d3 >>>> Author: thuan.tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au> >>>> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:54:25 +0700 >>>> >>>> mds: support multicast fragmented messages [#3033] >>>> >>>> - Sender may send broadcast big messages (> 65K) then small >>>> messages (< >>> 65K). >>>> Current MDS just loop via all destinations to unicast all >>>> fragmented >>> messages >>>> to one by one destinations. But sending multicast non-fragment >>>> messages >>> to all >>>> destinations. Therefor, receivers may get messages with incorrect >>>> order, non-fragment messages may come before fragmented messages. >>>> For example, it may lead to OUT OF ORDER for IMMNDs during IMMD >> sync. >>>> - Solution: support send multicast each fragmented messages to >>>> avoid disorder of arrived broadcast messages. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Complete diffstat: >>>> ------------------ >>>> src/mds/mds_c_sndrcv.c | 3 +- >>>> src/mds/mds_dt_tipc.c | 104 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >>> ----- >>>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Testing Commands: >>>> ----------------- >>>> N/A >>>> >>>> Testing, Expected Results: >>>> -------------------------- >>>> N/A >>>> >>>> Conditions of Submission: >>>> ------------------------- >>>> N/A >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> > > _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel