Summary: amfd: return try_again to sg admin unlock-in if any su is in
terminating state [#854]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #854
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F, Hans N, Praveen
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): All
Development branch: Default
--------------------------------
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 485abc196ffe517653824f3df1185536eaa94a28
Author: Nagendra Kumar<nagendr...@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:26:54 +0530
amfd: return try_again to sg admin unlock-in if any su is in terminating
state [#854] Problem: SG admin lock-in return immediately. Next admin
unlock-in also succeed even if sus are not terminated yet. Analysis: If
Amf
could return try again to unlock-in admin op, then another admin
operation
could be avoided. Fix: Return try again for subsequent admin op because
previous has not been completed yet.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg.cc | 13 +++++++++++++
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
1. Start demo applications.
2. amf-adm lock safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1; amf-adm lock-in
safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1
3. Keep gdb in terminate callback.
4. amf-adm unlock-in safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1;
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
#4 step return with try again.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from reviewers
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
• 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
• Requirements for releasing software faster
• Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
