Hi AndersBj, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Friday 31 January 2014 09:26 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: Avoid repeated lookup of admo in abort of ccbCreate [#724] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 724 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Surender > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 4.2; 4.3; 4.4; default(4.5) > Development branch: > > -------------------------------- > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 2feee5363e664a03cc7d90cc9026afd6f08c743c > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com> > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:43:53 +0100 > > IMM: Avoid repeated lookup of admo in abort of ccbCreate [#724] > > > In the iteration to remove the aborted creates, the admin-owner is only > looked up > if the admo-id in the current iteration differs from the admo-id in the > previous. > Typically they should be the same and so the repeated lookup is avoided. > Only of the ccb includes augmented creates and the original admo had ROF=false > will a different admo-id be possible. Augmentations should be rare so when > this > happens, there should only be a handful more lookups, not one for every > object. > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 33 > ++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > If Surender could verify that the patch works with the same test that provoked > the ticket, it would be great. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Abort of the huge create ccb should succeed. > The IMMNDs should not get killed by AMF heartbeat timeout. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel or Surender. > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
