Summary: amfd: return BAD_OP for repair operation for su hosted on absent node
[#826]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #826
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F, Hans N, Praveen
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): All
Development branch: 4.3.x
--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
<<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>
changeset 1d61a937545a1a4cdcd4e35763c59c2685aec181
Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:30:11 +0530
amfd: return BAD_OP for repair operation for su hosted on absent node
[#826]
Problem: When Su admin operation is run on su, whose node is absent,
then
amfd return TIMEOUT because node is absent and it is not able to send
message to amfnd. At the same time, Amfd increases
async_updt_cnt.node_updt
and send checkpoint to standby controller. On Standby controller, since
node
is absent so node id is not in the data base, so in dec_node_snd_msg_id,
avd_node_find_nodeid return NULL and async_updt_cnt.node_updt is not
increamented. This causes mismatch of async_updt_cnt.node_updt on Act
controller and Standby controller during warm sync.
Analysis: Amfd should return Error as it doesn't know the state of su or
node.
Fix: Amfd is returning BAD_OP when such condition occurs. This avoids
mismatch in async_updt_cnt.node_updt between Act controller and Standby
controller.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/avsv/avd/avd_su.c | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Please refer ticket.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Standby Amfd shouldn;t crash.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from peer maintainers
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 ~/.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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
