Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/2] Review Request for dtm: Add support for using IP unicast to discover nodes [#991]

2017-10-12 Thread Anders Widell 

Hi!

I intend to push this tomorrow unless there are any comments?

regards,

Anders Widell


On 10/06/2017 03:01 PM, Anders Widell wrote:

Summary: dtm: Extract Multicast class for node discovery message handling [#991]
Review request for Ticket(s): 991
Peer Reviewer(s): Alex, Ravi
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-991
Base revision: 44d113c4fa669065afe78d70bc81c5297d79ec0e
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/anders-w/review


Impacted area   Impact y/n

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


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

revision 19cba4d70d74fbc2ee46926644d3fab1e26eb68b
Author: Anders Widell 
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 14:48:21 +0200

dtm: Add support for using IP unicast to discover nodes [#991]

In addition to IP broadcast and IP multicast for DTM node discovery, add support
for IP unicast to a list of peer IP addresses. The list of IP addresses is read
when DTM starts, either from a file or using a DNS query.



revision 3816c7c46d466f9dfff85c41553084ee957e27d0
Author: Anders Widell 
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 14:47:57 +0200

dtm: Extract Multicast class for node discovery message handling [#991]

Extract a class with the name Multicast, that handles send and receive of DTM
node discovery datagram messages. The underlying protocol can be IP broadcast,
IP multicast, and - implemented in this ticket: IP unicast.

Note that this refactoring isn't complete - the new class has private methods
that are in fact more or less unmodified copies of the old C functions.



Added Files:

  src/dtm/dtmnd/Multicast.cc
  src/dtm/dtmnd/Multicast.h


Removed Files:
--
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_socket.h


Complete diffstat:
--
  00-README.conf|   24 +-
  src/dtm/Makefile.am   |3 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/Multicast.cc| 1142 +
  src/dtm/dtmnd/Multicast.h |  146 +
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm.h   |3 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_cb.h|   56 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_inter.h |3 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_inter_svc.cc|3 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_intra.cc|   11 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_intra.h |5 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_intra_disc.h|8 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_intra_svc.cc|   10 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_main.cc |  151 ++---
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_node.cc |   38 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_node.h  |   14 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_node_sockets.cc |  772 ++---
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_read_config.cc  |   54 +-
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtm_socket.h|   28 -
  src/dtm/dtmnd/dtmd.conf   |   35 +-
  19 files changed, 1511 insertions(+), 995 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-

Configure DTM to use IP unicast, e.g. with the following option:

DTM_MCAST_ADDR=file:/var/lib/peers.txt

Then add the list of peer IP addresses to /var/lib/peers.txt, one per line,
and finally start OpenSAF.


Testing, Expected Results:
--

OpenSAF shall start successfully using IP unicast.


Conditions of Submission:
-

Ack from reviewer(s), or on 2017-10-13.


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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

2017-10-12 Thread Vo Minh Hoang 
Dear Alex,

 

Thank you very much for your very fast response.

 

Because this is test code, I think we should push it to release also, test
environment should be consistent even it is really not important.

If not, release branch might fail sometimes then cost extra effort for
verifying much more important code.

 

Sincerely,

Hoang

 

From: Alex Jones [mailto:alex.jo...@genband.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:01 PM
To: Hoang Vo 
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for
test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

 

Hi Hoang,

 

  Ack from me. Is there a reason this needs to go on the release branch?
It's just test code.

 

Alex

  _  

From: Hoang Vo 
>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:13:44 AM
To: Alex Jones
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 ; Hoang Vo
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for
test_ckptOverwrite [#2624] 

 

  _  

NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender

  _  


Summary: ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2624
Peer Reviewer(s): ajo...@genband.com  
Pull request to: ajo...@genband.com  
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2624
Base revision: 4fbc3261d53914242bdbc5c300caecc53b88365a
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/swgerai/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 n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests y
Other n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***

revision 38ebcac386e4cfda5c0b17feabaa609c526651d9
Author: Hoang Vo  >
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:53:24 +0700

ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

test_ckptOverwrite verify overwrite behavior and should
handle SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT by retrying operation.



Complete diffstat:
--
src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


Testing Commands:
-
ckpttest 20 1

Testing, Expected Results:
--
test case pass even in delay network situation

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

2017-10-12 Thread Alex Jones 
Hi Hoang,


  Ack from me. Is there a reason this needs to go on the release branch? It's 
just test code.


Alex


From: Hoang Vo 
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:13:44 AM
To: Alex Jones
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Hoang Vo
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for 
test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]


NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender


Summary: ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2624
Peer Reviewer(s): ajo...@genband.com
Pull request to: ajo...@genband.com
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2624
Base revision: 4fbc3261d53914242bdbc5c300caecc53b88365a
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/swgerai/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 n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests y
Other n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***

revision 38ebcac386e4cfda5c0b17feabaa609c526651d9
Author: Hoang Vo 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:53:24 +0700

ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

test_ckptOverwrite verify overwrite behavior and should
handle SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT by retrying operation.



Complete diffstat:
--
src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


Testing Commands:
-
ckpttest 20 1

Testing, Expected Results:
--
test case pass even in delay network situation

Conditions of Submission:
-
ACK from maintainer

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

[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

2017-10-12 Thread Hoang Vo 
Summary: ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2624
Peer Reviewer(s): ajo...@genband.com
Pull request to: ajo...@genband.com
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2624
Base revision: 4fbc3261d53914242bdbc5c300caecc53b88365a
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/swgerai/review


Impacted area   Impact y/n

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


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***

revision 38ebcac386e4cfda5c0b17feabaa609c526651d9
Author: Hoang Vo 
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:53:24 +0700

ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

test_ckptOverwrite verify overwrite behavior and should
handle SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT by retrying operation.



Complete diffstat:
--
 src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


Testing Commands:
-
ckpttest 20 1

Testing, Expected Results:
--
test case pass even in delay network situation

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 ~/.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

[devel] [PATCH 1/1] ckpt: add timeout handling for test_ckptOverwrite [#2624]

2017-10-12 Thread Hoang Vo 
test_ckptOverwrite verify overwrite behavior and should
handle SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT by retrying operation.
---
 src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c b/src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c
index 9c1b6ba..6634790 100644
--- a/src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c
+++ b/src/ckpt/apitest/test_cpa_util.c
@@ -1810,7 +1810,7 @@ retry:
result = cpsv_test_result(rc, API_Overwrite[i].exp_output,
  API_Overwrite[i].result_string, cfg_flg);
 
-   if (rc == SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN)
+   if (rc == SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN || rc == SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT)
goto retry;
 
if (rc == SA_AIS_OK) {
-- 
1.9.1


--
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 1/1] base: double start failed [#2622]

2017-10-12 Thread Hans Nordebäck 

Hi Rafael,

not tested, minor comment/question below.

Regards /Hans



On 10/10/2017 02:08 PM, Rafael Odzakow wrote:

Previously named function "check_env" overwrites pid file. Move it to
after running pidofproc for amfnd pid.
---
  src/nid/opensafd.in | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/nid/opensafd.in b/src/nid/opensafd.in
index effe87d..d7035f5 100644
--- a/src/nid/opensafd.in
+++ b/src/nid/opensafd.in
@@ -235,8 +235,6 @@ mutex_remove() {
  }
  
  start() {

-   setup_env
-
if ! mutex_create; then
return 1
fi
@@ -254,6 +252,8 @@ start() {
  

[HansN] , not in the patch, but put double quote around the
[ -x "$daemon" ] || exit 5

I guess if putting double quote this check if $daemon exists/is 
executable returns correct value but not if the check is done
without the double quote. Where is the variable daemon set? It seems it 
is set in lsb function status_of_proc (Ubuntu14) but

that function is not called in opensafd.in

[ -x $daemon ] || exit 5
  
+	setup_env

+
check_transport
  
  	logger -t $osafprog "Starting OpenSAF Services($osafversion - $osafcshash) (Using $MDS_TRANSPORT)"



--
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