[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: fix loading the first value of a double type attribute in immload [#53]

[Zoran M. <zor...@er...>]

Summary: imm: fix loading the first value of a double type attribute in immload [#53]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 53
Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta
Pull request to: Zoran
Affected branch(es): default(4.5)
Development branch: default(4.5)

--------------------------------
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 49409a21fed3a54a1690d59ac9fd7db421ad83b8
Author:	Zoran Milinkovic <zor...@er...>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 17:33:02 +0200

	imm: fix loading the first value of a double type attribute in immload [#53]

	When immload loads data from PBE, in the first loaded value of a double type
	attribute, the floating-point precision is not fully supported. The patch
	provides the fix for correct loading the first value of a double type
	attribute.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immloadd/imm_pbe_load.cc |  80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Test multivalue and non-mulitvalue double type attributes with enough long mantissa before and after cluster reboot.
Double values of attributes after the cluster reboot must be the same as double values before the cluster reboot.
PBE must be enabled.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Neelakanta


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.