Summary: log: Count log client in child process [#3322]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3322
Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Thang, Thien
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3322
Base revision: 3beb5ab488600d4e4978084b8ea801a6de60ab15
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/hieuhh/review
--------------------------------
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 n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision 451b9c1b498b6d24b69add2cd263ae695951bd36
Author: hieu.h.hoang <hieu.h.ho...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:41:50 +0700
log: Create test case for forked process [#3322]
Create test case that the process running log agent is forked
into a new process.
revision 3a60afbb94037526f61b569d0caaddf6fa9deb0c
Author: hieu.h.hoang <hieu.h.ho...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:41:24 +0700
log: Don't clean the shared resources of log agent in child process [#3322]
If a process contained a log agent was forked into another process,
both processes shared the created sockets. If a process exit,
the destructor of log agent will be invoked and all shared resources
will be cleaned. It led the remain process can't write logs anymore.
This ticket don't allow the child process to clean the shared resources,
only the process constructed the log agent can clean it.
revision 036674daad92af4ec72cbb249b9ad77f5232ee42
Author: hieu.h.hoang <hieu.h.ho...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:40:09 +0700
log: Count log client in child process [#3322]
If a process is forked after log agent initialized, the child process use
the same mds address as parent process. If the child process initializes
another log client, logd still consider it as a log client of log agent
in parent process. The parent process didn't know that therefore a mailbox
is introduced for interaction between processes in a group.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/log/agent/lga_agent.cc | 11 ++-
src/log/agent/lga_agent.h | 2 +
src/log/agent/lga_util.cc | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
src/log/agent/lga_util.h | 17 ++++
src/log/apitest/tet_saLogStreamOpen_2.c | 3 +
src/log/apitest/tet_saLogWriteLogCallbackT.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
*** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES ***
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
*** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS ***
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 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
