Summary: amfd: if rootCauseEntity is PLM entity don't engage lock/lock-in
[#2835]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2835
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Gary, Ravi
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2835
Base revision: d6d899c39d15a91614ce2a350010c8634134ba0c
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/trguitar/review
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
This patch should be reviewed/tested with the patch from ticket 2834.
revision 9e09af922cf88a56ee4984abe46b01f363117e30
Author: Alex Jones <ajo...@rbbn.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:08:41 -0400
amfd: if rootCauseEntity is PLM entity don't engage lock/lock-in [#2835]
When using PLM an AMF node mapped to a CLM node mapped to a PLM EE, can get
stuck in locked state when rebooting, or going through a PLM EE lock/unlock.
When amfd receives a START step from CLM tracking it attempts to gracefully
shutdown the AMF node using AMF admin operations lock/lock-in. When PLM is
involved this doesn't always work correctly because PLM is also shutting down
the node by calling "opensafd stop". There is a race condition between PLM
using "opensafd stop", and amfd using the admin operations to bring down the
node, so that sometimes the AMF node gets stuck in locked state.
If the rootCauseEntity in the CLM tracking is a PLM entity then don't do
anything, as "opensafd stop" is already being called.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/amf/amfd/clm.cc | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
1) lock a PLM EE
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
2) amfd should not engage lock/lock-in for the AMF node, when START step is
received from CLM tracking
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Apr 24, or ack from developer
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
