[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for amfd: adjust NPI app configuration during unlock-in op [#1564]

[<pra...@or...>]

Summary: amfd: adjust NPI app configuration during unlock-in op [#1564] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1564 
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N, Nagendra, Gary 
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): ALL 
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>

--------------------------------
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 f3e3ec7ca8bdb38740f6f18274ea7a561ee96462
Author:	pra...@or...
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:59:22 +0530

	amfd: adjust NPI app configuration during unlock-in op [#1564]

	SG went to unstable for unlock operation on locked SG.

	This issue is applicable for NPI apps only. For a NPI SU, only one SI can be
	assigned to the whole SU. Remaining SIs if configured will remain
	unassigned. Earliar creating a SU in the system was allowed only in LOCK_IN
	state. So in typical steps, a user used to configure a SU in the system in
	LOCK_IN state and after this user performs unlock-in operation on the SU.
	During this UNLOCK_IN opearation, AMF adjusts SG configuration attributes
	for example for NPI application it adjusts the value of
	saAmfSGMaxActiveSIsperSU and saAmfSGMaxStandbySIsperSU. So issue will not be
	reproducible in this way. Now from 4.5 release creation of SU is allowed if
	either node or sg is in LOCK_IN state. In this reported issue SUs are
	created by keeping SG in LOCK_IN state.

	Patch fixes the problem by adjusting the SG attributes during unlock-in
	operation on SG, Node or NG.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/node.cc      |  3 ++-
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/nodegroup.cc |  1 +
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/sg.cc        |  1 +
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
Tested with the configuration attached in the ticket .

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Ony one SI will be fully assigned and SG will be stable.

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from any reviewer.

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.