[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs [#1107]
Summary: IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs [#1107] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1107 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel;Zoran Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(4.7) Development branch: 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 a2d0bc92571db5d5aac892cb55e79aed1ad0bb32 Author: Anders Bjornerstedt Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:48:21 +0200 IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs [#1107] The original fix only worked for aborting CCBs where there was an OI actively involved in processing a ccb callback at the time of the admin-op. It did not work for the case where the CCB was currently idle, i.e. waiting for the next operation from the om-client and OIs waiting for the next callback corrsponding to the next om-request. Complete diffstat: -- osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 34 +++--- 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) Testing Commands: - Test to include idle ccbs can be done using immcfg in explicit commit mode. The error response will only be received by the om-client when it tries the next operation. For some reason that I do not yet understand the error string assigned does not get picked up by immcfg. Could simply be that this is not done by immcfg in explicit commit mode. Testing, Expected Results: -- Invoking the admin-op to abort non-critical ccbs will abort also ccbs that are idle, but not empty. Conditions of Submission: - Ack from Neel and Zoran. 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. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports th
Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs [#1107]
Hi AndersBj, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack. /Neel. On Thursday 21 May 2015 03:26 AM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical > ccbs [#1107] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1107 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel;Zoran > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default(4.7) > Development branch: > > > 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 a2d0bc92571db5d5aac892cb55e79aed1ad0bb32 > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt > Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:48:21 +0200 > > IMM: Correction to support for admin-op for aborting non critical ccbs > [#1107] > > The original fix only worked for aborting CCBs where there was an OI > actively involved in processing a ccb callback at the time of the > admin-op. > It did not work for the case where the CCB was currently idle, i.e. > waiting > for the next operation from the om-client and OIs waiting for the next > callback corrsponding to the next om-request. > > > Complete diffstat: > -- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 34 > +++--- > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > - > Test to include idle ccbs can be done using immcfg in explicit commit mode. > The error response will only be received by the om-client when it tries the > next > operation. For some reason that I do not yet understand the error string > assigned > does not get picked up by immcfg. Could simply be that this is not done by > immcfg > in explicit commit mode. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -- > Invoking the admin-op to abort non-critical ccbs will abort also ccbs that > are idle, but not empty. > > > Conditions of Submission: > - > Ack from Neel and Zoran. > > > 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 af
