[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for PLM: plm does not always get correct inventory RDR from HPI [#880]

[Alex J. <aj...@ge...>]

Summary: PLM: plm does not always get correct inventory RDR from HPI 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 880
Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi
Pull request to: Mathi
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch:

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
This patch addresses some bugs using HPI.

changeset 77393bd4f86585391e7829b082214c6afcb9af4a
Author:	Alex Jones <aj...@ge...>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:45:09 -0400

	plm: plm does not always get correct inventory RDR from HPI [#880]

	Jun 20 13:47:58 linux-po6q osafplmd[4923]: ER HSM:RDR table is empty

	The use of saHpiRdrGet() in hsm_get_idr_info is not correct.
	SAHPI_LAST_ENTRY will be returned with the last entry. In the current code,
	if the Inventory RDR is the last entry, the code thinks that the table is
	empty, which is incorrect. Also, the path comparison in hrb_get_resourceid
	is not correct, either. The memcmp is only comparing one part of the path,
	and not the entire path.

	For the first problem, after the while loop, we replace the check for
	SAHPI_LAST_ENTRY with a test for the RDR entry being an Inventory RDR. For
	the second problem we replace the memcmp with a for loop which compares each
	entity in the entity path. It is not enough to use a memcmp here, because
	HPI is not guaranteed to initialize the whole SaHpiEntityPathT structure.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/hpi_intf/plms_hrb.c |  36 +++++++++++++++++++----
 osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/hpi_intf/plms_hsm.c |   2 +-
 osaf/services/saf/plmsv/plms/plms_he_pres_fsm.c  |   2 +-
 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
(1) You need an Inventory RDR that is last in the RDR list.
(2) Model all HEs that HPI sees.
(3) Bring up OpenSAF with PLM.


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Don't see lots of "RDR table is empty" messages.  All hardware seen in HPI can
be modeled as HEs and PLM can see all the hardware.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------


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.