Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581
Changes are fine to me. Thanks, Ramesh. On 12/16/2013 7:20 PM, Hans Nordebäck wrote: Hi Ramesh, is it ok if I push this patch today?/BR HansN -Original Message- From: Anders Widell Sent: den 10 december 2013 10:42 To: Hans Nordebäck; Hans Feldt; ramesh.bet...@oracle.com Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 Ack with comment. The ticket number is still not surrounded with square brackets [#581] in the first line of the commit message. regards, Anders Widell 2013-12-10 10:37, Hans Nordeback skrev: Summary: base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit [#581] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 581 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW,HansF,Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(4.4) Development branch: default Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesn OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each y above): - EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE changeset 8d36c7f02507201c39204ad7afc7574bb6cdc4a0 Author: Hans Nordeback hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com Date:Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:24:37 +0100 base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit. The change was done due to that exit() is not thread safe, see e.g. ticket #651. To make it possible to dump e.g. coverage data on termination a weak reference to __gcov_flush has been added. Complete diffstat: -- osaf/libs/core/common/daemon.c | 8 +++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 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 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
[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581
Summary: base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit [#581] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 581 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW,HansF,Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(4.4) Development branch: default Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesn OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each y above): - EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE changeset 8d36c7f02507201c39204ad7afc7574bb6cdc4a0 Author: Hans Nordeback hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:24:37 +0100 base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit. The change was done due to that exit() is not thread safe, see e.g. ticket #651. To make it possible to dump e.g. coverage data on termination a weak reference to __gcov_flush has been added. Complete diffstat: -- osaf/libs/core/common/daemon.c | 8 +++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 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 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. -- Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ 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 base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581
Ack with comment. The ticket number is still not surrounded with square brackets [#581] in the first line of the commit message. regards, Anders Widell 2013-12-10 10:37, Hans Nordeback skrev: Summary: base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit [#581] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 581 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW,HansF,Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(4.4) Development branch: default Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesn OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each y above): - EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE changeset 8d36c7f02507201c39204ad7afc7574bb6cdc4a0 Author: Hans Nordeback hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:24:37 +0100 base: use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit #581 use _Exit instead of exit in daemon_exit. The change was done due to that exit() is not thread safe, see e.g. ticket #651. To make it possible to dump e.g. coverage data on termination a weak reference to __gcov_flush has been added. Complete diffstat: -- osaf/libs/core/common/daemon.c | 8 +++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 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 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. -- Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
