Summary: smf: implementer names reused [#1126]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1126
Peer Reviewer(s): Ingvar B, Bertil E
Pull request to: Ingvar B
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services n
OpenSAF services y
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
smf: implementer names reused [#1126]
changeset e9c4f2377a941538e038c230ad77ed872693c715
Author: Robert Apanowicz <robert.apanow...@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:06:11 +0100
smf: implementer names reused [#1126]
Changed from using DNs as campaign and procedure OI names, to use fixed
OI
name for campaign ("safSmfCampaign"), and a numbered name
("safSmfProc"<index>) for procedure OIs. Extended the special handling
where
upgrade happens from and old version of SMF in which the campaign
handles
used also for procedures. With this change it is possible to upgrade
from
that old version to this version. The procedure OI names are now reused,
since each campaign-start resets the index for procedure OI names.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaign.cc | 3 ++
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfCampaignThread.cc | 34
++++++++++++++++++++++-----
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfProcedureThread.cc | 90
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc | 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.hh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
<<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>>
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
<<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>>
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
<<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
