date:20170118

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh

Ok i will review/check the patch/case update you.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 1:17 PM, Vo Minh Hoang wrote:
>
> Dear Mahesh,
>
> >>So we can always re-use the existing UN-linked resources by just 
> simply removing UN-link flag,
> >> what is your opinion?
>
> Based on my understanding, new checkpoint even has the same name but 
> might have different attribute (collocated/non-collocated) and be 
> opened from different node make the way we manage replicas become 
> complicated.
>
> I fear that will cost more work that Nhat’s solution.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
> Hoang
>
> *From:*
>

--
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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh


Ok I will wait for new V4 patch .

-AVM


On 1/19/2017 1:05 PM, Vo Minh Hoang wrote:
> Dear Mahesh,
>
> I checked with newest source code, problem still occur.
> So it is in different case.
>
> Btw, I found some unexpected characters in submitted patch.
> So I will send updated file for review.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Hoang
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vo Minh Hoang [mailto:hoang.m...@dektech.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: 'A V Mahesh' ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
> failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3
>
> Dear Mahesh,
>
> I will check that again.
> I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Hoang
>
> -Original Message-
> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
> To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
> failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3
>
> Hi Hoang,
>
>>>Testing Commands:
>>> -
>>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing
>>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
> Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
> become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
> the case with
> #2253 and confirm the issue still exist.
>
> -AVM
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
>> Hi Hoang,
>>
>> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>>
>> -AVM
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review
>>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s):
>>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request
>>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development
>>> branch: default
>>>
>>> 
>>> Impacted area   Impact y/n
>>> 
>>> Docsn
>>> Build systemn
>>> RPM/packaging   n
>>> Configuration files n
>>> Startup scripts n
>>> SAF servicesy
>>> OpenSAF servicesn
>>> Core libraries  n
>>> Samples n
>>> Tests   n
>>> Other   n
>>>
>>>
>>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>>> -
>>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything
>>> compare to previous version
>>>
>>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>>> Author: Hoang Vo 
>>> Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>>
>>> cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>>
>>> problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
> unlinked, it
>>> might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
> object
>>> is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
> will not
>>> succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
> existing.
>>> Fix:
>>> - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
> re-create new
>>> one.
>>> - Stop timer of removed node.
>>> - Update data in patricia trees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Complete diffstat:
>>> --
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>> src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>> src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>> 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Testing Commands:
>>> -
>>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing
>>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>>
>>> Testing, Expected Results:
>>> --
>>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>>
>>> Conditions of Submission:
>>> -
>>> ACK from maintainer
>>>
>>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>>> ---
>>> mipsn  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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

2017-01-18 Thread Vo Minh Hoang

Dear Mahesh,

>> So we can always re-use the existing UN-linked resources by just simply
removing UN-link flag, 
>> what is your opinion?

Based on my understanding, new checkpoint even has the same name but might
have different attribute (collocated/non-collocated) and be opened from
different node make the way we manage replicas become complicated.

I fear that will cost more work that Nhat's solution.

Thank you and best regards,

Hoang

From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree
when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

HiHoang,

>>The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a checkpoint in
following scenario:

1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE

2. Unlink the checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used)

3. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name
as the on in 1.

>>After 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the replica IMM
objects are not created.

As I Know CKPT specification  doesn't say , if checkpoint is reopened with
same name
 which is currently in UN-linked state and not yet expired/cleaned  an new
instance should be created .

So we can always re-use the existing UN-linked resources by just simply
removing UN-link flag, 
what is your opinion?

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:37 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:

Summary: cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1655
Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com  ;
zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com  
Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com  
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default

Impacted area   Impact y/n

 Docsn
 Build systemn
 RPM/packaging   n
 Configuration files n
 Startup scripts n
 SAF servicesy
 OpenSAF servicesn
 Core libraries  n
 Samples n
 Tests   n
 Other   n

Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
Rebase patch to latest folder structure, do not change any source code
inside
Patched after 1765

changeset 6ffeaa4fbf2e352bd42a4bba160c4c593efcf749
Author:  Hoang Vo  

Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:59:09 +0700

  Problem:
   The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a
checkpoint
  in following scenario:

  1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE 2. Unlink the
  checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used) 3. Open a checkpoint with
  flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name as the one in 1.

  After step 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the replica
  IMM objects are not created.

  The problem happens because the CPD does not delete relating nodes from
  ckpt_reploc_tree when it unlinks the checkpoint in step 2.

  Solution:
  - The solution is to remove replica location node of that
checkpoint
  from the ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking the checkpoint.

Complete diffstat:
--
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c   |   4 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c |  30 ++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:
-
Follow testing step specified in the ticket 1655

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Refer the ticket 1655 description for expected result

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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 runt

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Vo Minh Hoang

Dear Mahesh,

I checked with newest source code, problem still occur.
So it is in different case.

Btw, I found some unexpected characters in submitted patch.
So I will send updated file for review.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: Vo Minh Hoang [mailto:hoang.m...@dektech.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:17 PM
To: 'A V Mahesh' ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Dear Mahesh,

I will check that again.
I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>>osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
the case with
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review 
>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s):
>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request
>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development
>> branch: default
>>
>> 
>> Impacted area   Impact y/n
>> 
>>Docsn
>>Build systemn
>>RPM/packaging   n
>>Configuration files n
>>Startup scripts n
>>SAF servicesy
>>OpenSAF servicesn
>>Core libraries  n
>>Samples n
>>Tests   n
>>Other   n
>>
>>
>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything 
>> compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  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 incorrectl

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh

HiHoang,

 >>The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a checkpoint in 
following scenario:

 1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE
 2. Unlink the checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used)
 3. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name
as the on in 1.

 >>After 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the replica 
IMM objects are not created.

As I Know CKPT specification  doesn't say , if checkpoint is reopened 
with same name
  which is currently in UN-linked state and not yet expired/cleaned an 
new instance should be created .

So we can always re-use the existing UN-linked resources by just simply 
removing UN-link flag,
what is your opinion?

-AVM
On 1/19/2017 12:37 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
> Summary: cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1655
> Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
> Affected branch(es): default
> Development branch: default
>
> 
> Impacted area   Impact y/n
> 
>   Docsn
>   Build systemn
>   RPM/packaging   n
>   Configuration files n
>   Startup scripts n
>   SAF servicesy
>   OpenSAF servicesn
>   Core libraries  n
>   Samples n
>   Tests   n
>   Other   n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> -
> Rebase patch to latest folder structure, do not change any source code inside
> Patched after 1765
>
> changeset 6ffeaa4fbf2e352bd42a4bba160c4c593efcf749
> Author:   Hoang Vo 
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:59:09 +0700
>
>   Problem:
>    The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a 
> checkpoint
>   in following scenario:
>
>   1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE 2. Unlink the
>   checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used) 3. Open a checkpoint 
> with
>   flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name as the one in 1.
>
>   After step 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the 
> replica
>   IMM objects are not created.
>
>   The problem happens because the CPD does not delete relating nodes from
>   ckpt_reploc_tree when it unlinks the checkpoint in step 2.
>
>   Solution:
>   - The solution is to remove replica location node of that 
> checkpoint
>   from the ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking the checkpoint.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c   |   4 
>   src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c |  30 ++
>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> Follow testing step specified in the ticket 1655
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Refer the ticket 1655 description for expected result
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> ACK from maintainer
>
> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
> ---
> mipsn  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 sh

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Vo Minh Hoang

Dear Mahesh,

I will check that again.
I have just rebased it when this patch stayed in local PC for too long.

Thank you and best regards,
Hoang

-Original Message-
From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Hoang Vo ; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct
failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>>osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd to
become active cpd) if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest
the case with
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] Review 
>> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765 Peer Reviewer(s): 
>> mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Pull request 
>> to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com Affected branch(es): default Development 
>> branch: default
>>
>> 
>> Impacted area   Impact y/n
>> 
>>Docsn
>>Build systemn
>>RPM/packaging   n
>>Configuration files n
>>Startup scripts n
>>SAF servicesy
>>OpenSAF servicesn
>>Core libraries  n
>>Samples n
>>Tests   n
>>Other   n
>>
>>
>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure, do not change anything 
>> compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being
unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM
object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it
will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object
existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and
re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by killing 
>> osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  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
>>

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh

Hi Hoang,

  >>Testing Commands:
>>-
>>Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
>>killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Is this killing osafamfd is just create fail-over ? ( make standby cpd 
to become active cpd)
if so this has some relation with #2253 , let us retest the case with 
#2253 and confirm the issue still exist.

-AVM

On 1/19/2017 12:33 PM, A V Mahesh wrote:
> Hi Hoang,
>
> Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253
>
> -AVM
>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
>> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765
>> Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
>> Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
>> Affected branch(es): default
>> Development branch: default
>>
>> 
>> Impacted area   Impact y/n
>> 
>>Docsn
>>Build systemn
>>RPM/packaging   n
>>Configuration files n
>>Startup scripts n
>>SAF servicesy
>>OpenSAF servicesn
>>Core libraries  n
>>Samples n
>>Tests   n
>>Other   n
>>
>>
>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
>> -
>> Rebase source code to newest folder structure,
>> do not change anything compare to previous version
>>
>> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
>> Author:  Hoang Vo 
>> Date:Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>>
>>  cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>>
>>  problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being 
>> unlinked, it
>>  might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM 
>> object
>>  is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it 
>> will not
>>  succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object existing.
>>
>>  Fix:
>>  - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and 
>> re-create new
>>  one.
>>  - Stop timer of removed node.
>>  - Update data in patricia trees.
>>
>>
>> Complete diffstat:
>> --
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>>src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>>src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>>5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Testing Commands:
>> -
>> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
>> killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>>
>> Testing, Expected Results:
>> --
>> Checkpoint information is not change
>>
>> Conditions of Submission:
>> -
>> ACK from maintainer
>>
>> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
>> ---
>> mipsn  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

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] Problem:

2017-01-18 Thread Hoang Vo

 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c   |   4 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c |  30 ++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)



The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a checkpoint in following 
scenario:

1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE
2. Unlink the checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used)
3. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name as the 
one in 1.

After step 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the replica IMM 
objects
are not created.

The problem happens because the CPD does not delete relating nodes from 
ckpt_reploc_tree
when it unlinks the checkpoint in step 2.

Solution:
-
The solution is to remove replica location node of that checkpoint from the 
ckpt_reploc_tree
when unlinking the checkpoint.

diff --git a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
--- a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
@@ -441,6 +441,8 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_reploc_node_delete(CPD
 {
uint32_t rc = NCSCC_RC_SUCCESS;
 
+   TRACE_ENTER();
+
if (cb->ha_state == SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE) {
 
rc = cpd_ckpt_reploc_imm_object_delete(cb, ckpt_reploc_node, 
is_unlink_set);
@@ -462,6 +464,7 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_reploc_node_delete(CPD
TRACE_4("cpd db node add failed ");
}
 
+   TRACE_LEAVE();
return NCSCC_RC_FAILURE;
}
 
@@ -470,6 +473,7 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_reploc_node_delete(CPD
m_MMGR_FREE_CPD_CKPT_REPLOC_INFO(ckpt_reploc_node);
}
 
+   TRACE_LEAVE();
return rc;
 }
 
diff --git a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
--- a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
@@ -1043,6 +1043,36 @@ uint32_t cpd_proc_unlink_set(CPD_CB *cb,
(*ckpt_node)->attributes = map_info->attributes;
/* Delete the MAP Info */
rc = cpd_ckpt_map_node_delete(cb, map_info);
+
+   /* Delete replica location of the unlinked checkpoint from the 
ckpt_reploc_tree */
+   CPD_NODE_REF_INFO *nref_info = (*ckpt_node)->node_list;
+
+   while (nref_info) {
+   SaClmNodeIdT node_id = 
m_NCS_NODE_ID_FROM_MDS_DEST(nref_info->dest);
+   SaClmClusterNodeT cluster_node;
+   CPD_REP_KEY_INFO key_info;
+   CPD_CKPT_REPLOC_INFO *reploc_info = NULL;
+
+   memset(&cluster_node, 0, sizeof(SaClmClusterNodeT));
+   memset(&key_info, 0, sizeof(CPD_REP_KEY_INFO));
+
+   if (saClmClusterNodeGet(cb->clm_hdl, node_id, 
CPD_CLM_API_TIMEOUT, &cluster_node) != SA_AIS_OK) {
+   LOG_ER("cpd unlink set - saClmClusterNodeGet failed for 
node_id %u",node_id);
+   rc = SA_AIS_ERR_LIBRARY;
+   break;
+   }
+
+   key_info.node_name = 
osaf_extended_name_borrow(&cluster_node.nodeName);
+   key_info.ckpt_name = ckpt_name;
+
+   cpd_ckpt_reploc_get(&cb->ckpt_reploc_tree, &key_info, 
&reploc_info);
+   if (reploc_info) {
+   cpd_ckpt_reploc_node_delete(cb, reploc_info, 
(*ckpt_node)->is_unlink_set);
+   }
+
+   nref_info = nref_info->next;
+   }
+
TRACE_LEAVE();
return rc;
 }

--
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

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

2017-01-18 Thread Hoang Vo

Summary: cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1655
Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default


Impacted area   Impact y/n

 Docsn
 Build systemn
 RPM/packaging   n
 Configuration files n
 Startup scripts n
 SAF servicesy
 OpenSAF servicesn
 Core libraries  n
 Samples n
 Tests   n
 Other   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
Rebase patch to latest folder structure, do not change any source code inside
Patched after 1765

changeset 6ffeaa4fbf2e352bd42a4bba160c4c593efcf749
Author: Hoang Vo 
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:59:09 +0700

Problem:
 The replica IMM objects are not created after opening a 
checkpoint
in following scenario:

1. Open a checkpoint with flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE 2. Unlink the
checkpoint ( the checkpoint is still being used) 3. Open a checkpoint 
with
flag SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_CREATE with same name as the one in 1.

After step 3. although the checkpoint is opened successfully, the 
replica
IMM objects are not created.

The problem happens because the CPD does not delete relating nodes from
ckpt_reploc_tree when it unlinks the checkpoint in step 2.

Solution:
- The solution is to remove replica location node of that 
checkpoint
from the ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking the checkpoint.


Complete diffstat:
--
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c   |   4 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c |  30 ++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
Follow testing step specified in the ticket 1655

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Refer the ticket 1655 description for expected result

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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 ~/.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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread A V Mahesh

Hi Hoang,

Can you please crosscheck is this issue has any relation with #2253

-AVM


On 1/19/2017 12:28 PM, Hoang Vo wrote:
> Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765
> Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
> Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
> Affected branch(es): default
> Development branch: default
>
> 
> Impacted area   Impact y/n
> 
>   Docsn
>   Build systemn
>   RPM/packaging   n
>   Configuration files n
>   Startup scripts n
>   SAF servicesy
>   OpenSAF servicesn
>   Core libraries  n
>   Samples n
>   Tests   n
>   Other   n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> -
> Rebase source code to newest folder structure,
> do not change anything compare to previous version
>
> changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
> Author:   Hoang Vo 
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700
>
>   cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
>
>   problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being 
> unlinked, it
>   might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM 
> object
>   is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it 
> will not
>   succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object existing.
>
>   Fix:
>   - When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and 
> re-create new
>   one.
>   - Stop timer of removed node.
>   - Update data in patricia trees.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
>   src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
>   src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
>   src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
>   src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
>   5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
> killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> Checkpoint information is not change
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> ACK from maintainer
>
> Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
> ---
> mipsn  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 me

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]

2017-01-18 Thread Hoang Vo

 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)


problem:
In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being unlinked, it might 
causes an unfinished
unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM object is not deleted). Later on, when 
the checkpoint is
created again, it will not succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint 
IMM object existing.

Fix:
- When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and re-create new 
one.
- Stop timer of removed node.
- Update data in patricia trees.

diff --git a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
--- a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c
@@ -104,6 +104,21 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_node_add(NCS_PATRICIA_
/*create the imm runtime object */
if (ha_state == SA_AMF_HA_ACTIVE) {
err = create_runtime_ckpt_object(ckpt_node, immOiHandle);
+
+   /* The Checkpoint IMM object exist due to unfinished previous 
opernation (e.g unlink)
+* The action is to delete the old object and create a new one 
*/
+
+   if (err == SA_AIS_ERR_EXIST) {
+   LOG_WA("cpd ckpt node add - the IMM object exits %s", 
ckpt_node->ckpt_name);
+
+   if (delete_runtime_ckpt_object(ckpt_node, immOiHandle) 
!= SA_AIS_OK) {
+   LOG_ER("Deleting run time object %s FAILED", 
ckpt_node->ckpt_name);
+   return NCSCC_RC_FAILURE;
+   }
+
+   err = create_runtime_ckpt_object(ckpt_node, 
immOiHandle);
+   }
+
if (err != SA_AIS_OK) {
LOG_ER("create runtime ckpt object failed with error: 
%u",err);
if (err == SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM) {
diff --git a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c
--- a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c
@@ -310,13 +310,17 @@ static uint32_t cpd_evt_proc_ckpt_create
if (send_evt.info.cpnd.info.ckpt_info.is_active_exists)
send_evt.info.cpnd.info.ckpt_info.active_dest = 
ckpt_node->active_dest;
 
-   if (map_info->attributes.creationFlags & 
SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_COLLOCATED)
+   if (map_info->attributes.creationFlags & 
SA_CKPT_CHECKPOINT_COLLOCATED) {
+   TRACE("==HOANG== ckpt_rep_create = true");
send_evt.info.cpnd.info.ckpt_info.ckpt_rep_create = 
true;
-   else {
-   if (is_first_rep)
+   } else {
+   if (is_first_rep) {
+   TRACE("==HOANG== ckpt_rep_create = 
true");

send_evt.info.cpnd.info.ckpt_info.ckpt_rep_create = true;
-   else
+   } else {
+   TRACE("==HOANG== ckpt_rep_create = 
false");

send_evt.info.cpnd.info.ckpt_info.ckpt_rep_create = false;
+   }
}
 
if (ckpt_node->dest_cnt) {
diff --git a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
--- a/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c
@@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_db_entry_update(CPD_CB
proc_rc = 
cpd_ckpt_reploc_node_add(&cb->ckpt_reploc_tree, reploc_info, cb->ha_state, 
cb->immOiHandle);
if (proc_rc != NCSCC_RC_SUCCESS) {
/* goto reploc_node_add_fail; */
-   TRACE_4("cpd db add failed ");
+   LOG_ER("cpd db replica add failed ");
+   goto replica_node_add_fail;
}
}
 
@@ -367,6 +368,10 @@ uint32_t cpd_ckpt_db_entry_update(CPD_CB
TRACE_LEAVE();
return NCSCC_RC_SUCCESS;
 
+ replica_node_add_fail:
+   cpd_ckpt_node_delete(cb, ckpt_node);
+   ckpt_node = NULL;
+
  ckpt_node_add_fail:
cpd_ckpt_map_node_delete(cb, map_info);
map_info = NULL;
@@ -679,7 +684,8 @@ uint32_t cpd_process_cpnd_down(CPD_CB *c
cpd_cpnd_info_node_find_add(&cb->cpnd_tree, cpnd_dest, &cpnd_info, 
&add_flag);
if (!cpnd_info)
return NCSCC_RC_SUCCESS;
-
+   /* Stop timer before processing down */
+   cpd_tmr_stop(&cpnd_info->cpnd_ret_timer);
cref_info = cpnd_info->ckpt_ref_list;
 
while (cref_info) {
@@ -989,6 +995,14 @@ uint32_t cpd_proc_retention_set(CPD_CB *
 
/* Update the retention Time */
(*ckpt_node)->ret_time = reten_time;
+   (*ckpt_node)->attributes.retentionDuration = reten_time;
+
+   /* Update the related patricia tre

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

2017-01-18 Thread Hoang Vo

Summary: cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1765
Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com
Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default


Impacted area   Impact y/n

 Docsn
 Build systemn
 RPM/packaging   n
 Configuration files n
 Startup scripts n
 SAF servicesy
 OpenSAF servicesn
 Core libraries  n
 Samples n
 Tests   n
 Other   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
Rebase source code to newest folder structure,
do not change anything compare to previous version

changeset 9c34df19e6b98ece2cfcd10be0b748d3b563e029
Author: Hoang Vo 
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:52:02 +0700

cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]

problem: In case a failover happens while a checkpoint is being 
unlinked, it
might causes an unfinished unlink operation (i.e the checkpoint IMM 
object
is not deleted). Later on, when the checkpoint is created again, it 
will not
succeed because the CPD detects that the checkpoint IMM object existing.

Fix:
- When error occur delete the existing checkpoint IMM object and 
re-create new
one.
- Stop timer of removed node.
- Update data in patricia trees.


Complete diffstat:
--
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_db.c |  15 +++
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_evt.c|  12 
 src/ckpt/ckptd/cpd_proc.c   |  18 --
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_evt.c  |   3 ++-
 src/ckpt/ckptnd/cpnd_proc.c |  12 +---
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-
Create checkpoint and set retention to big value Failover by
killing osafamfd multiple times Check checkpoint information

Testing, Expected Results:
--
Checkpoint information is not change

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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 sit

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]

2017-01-18 Thread Hung Nguyen

 src/imm/Makefile.am |  1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi.

diff --git a/src/imm/Makefile.am b/src/imm/Makefile.am
--- a/src/imm/Makefile.am
+++ b/src/imm/Makefile.am
@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ lib_libSaImmOi_la_LDFLAGS += \
-version-number 0:3:0
 
 lib_libSaImmOi_la_LIBADD = \
+   lib/libimm_common.la \
lib/libais.la \
lib/libopensaf_core.la
 

--
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

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]

2017-01-18 Thread Hung Nguyen

Summary: imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2273
Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Neel, Anders
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 5.2
Development branch: 5.2


Impacted area   Impact y/n

 Docsn
 Build systemn
 RPM/packaging   n
 Configuration files n
 Startup scripts n
 SAF servicesy
 OpenSAF servicesn
 Core libraries  n
 Samples n
 Tests   n
 Other   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-


changeset 3a519c3c60f7640c9d69d141d3819e0f8f7dfedf
Author: Hung Nguyen 
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:44:23 +0700

imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]

Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi.


Complete diffstat:
--
 src/imm/Makefile.am |  1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-



Testing, Expected Results:
--



Conditions of Submission:
-
Ack from reviewers.


Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] Problem:

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Update ckpt_reploc_tree when unlinking a checkpoint [#1655

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765]

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpd: to correct failover behavior of cpsv [#1765] V3

[devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]

[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: Add imm_common to LIBADD list of libSaImmOi [#2273]

14 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information