[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: Add upgrade flag for OpenSAF4.5 in opensafImmNostdFlags [#842]

[Anders B. <and...@er...>]

Summary: imm: Add upgrade flag for OpenSAF4.5 in opensafImmNostdFlags [#842]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 842
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran
Pull request to: 
Affected branch(es): default(4.5)
Development branch: 

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------

changeset e8d651611b7260f371e50f3aa19e717fe23c415b
Author:	Anders Bjornerstedt <and...@er...>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 11:07:54 +0200

	imm: Add upgrade flag for OpenSAF4.5 in opensafImmNostdFlags [#842]

	New message types and new server states have been added to the immsv in
	OpenSAF 4.5. During upgrades from older OpenSAF releases to the OpenSAF 4.5
	release, usage of the new message types and new states would cause problems
	for the mixed version cluster.

	The OpensAF IMM uses the opensafImmNostdFlags in the imm service object:
	'opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService' for managing such transient and
	special functionality. This changeset allocates bit 5 of the bitvector for
	this purpose. See osaf/services/saf/immsv/README for details.

This patch only adds support for the flag and auto enablement of the flag at
cluster restart. Actual usage of the new flag (bit 5) will be added as a part
for each 4.5 ticket that needs upgade protection.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/libs/common/immsv/include/immsv_api.h |   1 +
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/README             |  46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc  |  31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.hh  |   1 +
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_init.h |   1 +
 5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
After cluster start check the value of the opensafImmNostdFlags RTA in
the object: 'opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService'.

    immlist opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------

After cluster start the opensafImmNostdFlags of the object: 
'opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService' should have bits 2, 3 and 5 
turned on. That would be the bits controlling:

Bit 2 controls OpenSAF4.1 protocols allowed or not.
Bit 3 controls OpenSAF4.3 protocols allowed or not.
Bit 5 controls OpenSAF4.5 protocols allowed or not.

This ticket only tracks the addition of support for the 4.5 protocol bit.
Actually testing the usage/sensitivity to the bit will be part of each
relevant 4.5 enhancement ticket. 
I will re-open relevant tickets for this accordingly.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Neel.


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.