Summary: logsv: Fix checkpoint version handling [#688]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #688
Peer Reviewer(s): mathi.naic...@oracle.com
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 4.4
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
--------------------------------
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 7168b145cd316a903c19cb39a77a8888825e7428
Author: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:22:27 +0100
logsv: Fix checkpoint version handling [#688]
Add new version for check-pointing and make it possible to run
logservice
with different versions on respective node.
Added Files:
------------
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v1.c
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v1.h
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v2.c
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/Makefile.am | 4 +
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_cb.h | 1 +
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_evt.c | 260 ++++++++++++++-----
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.c | 143 +++++++---
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.c | 1452
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------------------------------
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.h | 117 ++------
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v1.c | 393
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v1.h | 101 +++++++
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv_v2.c | 561
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.h | 142 ++++------
osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_util.c | 3 +-
11 files changed, 2099 insertions(+), 1078 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Run logtest with "old (version 4.3)" on one SC node and "new (version 4.4)"
on the other SC node.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Test shall pass. No node restart
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack by reviewers or one week
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
