osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/su.h | 13 +
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
May 2 18:56:32 linux osafamfnd[12420]: NO Assigned
'safSi=Dataplane-Np1-SI-1,safApp=DataplaneApp' STANDBY to
'safSu=Dataplane-SU1,safSg=Dataplane-Np1,safApp=DataplaneApp'
May 2 18:56
In #493 the assignments were given to SU5 without checking its presence
state. But this was not because of some admin operation, but due to the
continuous faults in
in all other SUs which were receiving the assignments. So ideally such a
check of Presence sate should be added in assignment algo
First I don't think we should bring in cluster and application state just like
this. It is not relevant for this case and we anyway don't support such ops.
Second this macro is out of control and should be changed into a (inline)
function instead.
Haven't I already done that in my refactoring se
Comments inline...
On 05/06/2014 09:08 AM, Hans Feldt wrote:
> First I don't think we should bring in cluster and application state just
> like this. It is not relevant for this case and we anyway don't support such
> ops.
[Alex] It is relevant in that this macro is a test for SU in-service.
Hi Praveen,
I don't think this is necessary because avd_sg_2n_su_chose_asgn()
(and others) checks the readiness state. And the readiness state is only
set to "in-service" in other parts of the code by first testing this
macro which I've modified.
So, if an SU is not instantiated, the
The way you have changed the macro has made useable only for pre-instantiable
SUs since the table you point to is only valid for pre-inst SUs.
We already have some tech debt with this macro:
// TODO(nagu) remove saAmfSUPreInstantiable check and
move into m_AVD_APP_SU_IS_I
will share a patch
/Hans
On 7 May 2014 07:47, Hans Feldt wrote:
> The way you have changed the macro has made useable only for pre-instantiable
> SUs since the table you point to is only valid for pre-inst SUs.
>
> We already have some tech debt with this macro:
> // TODO
Good catch. Yes. This makes sense.
Alex
On 05/07/2014 01:47 AM, Hans Feldt wrote:
> The way you have changed the macro has made useable only for pre-instantiable
> SUs since the table you point to is only valid for pre-inst SUs.
>
> We already have some tech debt with this macro:
>
