Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015]

2019-03-01 Thread Thang Nguyen
Hi Minh,

I posted the syslog and trace on the ticket.


B.R
/Thang

-Original Message-
From: Minh Hon Chau  
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 3:27 PM
To: thang.d.nguyen ; gary@dektech.com.au; 
Hans Nordeback 
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for amfd: increase mds priority of 
amfnd down event [#3015]

Hi Thang,

+ Hans

If the issue is reproducible, can you upload the full log/trace to ticket 
please?

Thanks

Minh

On 27/2/19 10:17 am, thang.d.nguyen wrote:
> Summary: amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015] 
> Review request for Ticket(s): 3015 Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Minh Pull 
> request to: Minh Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: 
> ticket-3015 Base revision: 1f9cf4636b07d28a906f62b44144c337c5280f1a
> Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thangng/review
>
> 
> 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):
> -
>
> revision e81b6874f37e9761594f7ee3328486062fcbddb3
> Author:   thang.d.nguyen 
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:50:11 +0700
>
> amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015]
>
> To avoid the issue a node can not join the cluster when the PBE hung.
>
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> --
>   src/amf/amfd/mds.cc | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -
> N/A.
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --
> N/A.
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -
> Acked from reviwer.
>
> 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.
>
>



___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel


Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015]

2019-03-01 Thread Minh Hon Chau

Hi Thang,

+ Hans

If the issue is reproducible, can you upload the full log/trace to 
ticket please?


Thanks

Minh

On 27/2/19 10:17 am, thang.d.nguyen wrote:

Summary: amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3015
Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Minh
Pull request to: Minh
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3015
Base revision: 1f9cf4636b07d28a906f62b44144c337c5280f1a
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thangng/review


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):
-

revision e81b6874f37e9761594f7ee3328486062fcbddb3
Author: thang.d.nguyen 
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:50:11 +0700

amfd: increase mds priority of amfnd down event [#3015]

To avoid the issue a node can not join the cluster
when the PBE hung.



Complete diffstat:
--
  src/amf/amfd/mds.cc | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


Testing Commands:
-
N/A.

Testing, Expected Results:
--
N/A.

Conditions of Submission:
-
Acked from reviwer.

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.





___
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel