[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: skip fevs for object and class applier set/release call [#1535]

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

Summary: imm: skip fevs for object and class applier set/release call [#1535]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1535
Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Hung
Pull request to: Zoran
Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.7.x, default(5.0)
Development branch: default(5.0)

--------------------------------
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 ce4d7cfa89a0de8b6f81a4e7fa887ae53b895f0a
Author:	Zoran Milinkovic <zor...@er...>
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:21:43 +0100

	imm: skip fevs for object and class applier set/release call [#1535]

	When saImmOiObjectImplementerSet, saImmOiClassImplementerSet,
	saImmOiObjectImplementerRelease and saImmOiClassImplementerRelease are
	invoked for appliers, the calls will be only local and will not use fevs.
	Object and class applier set info will be stored only on the local node.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc  |  11 ++++++++++-
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c  |  40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_init.h |   2 ++
 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


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


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Test that object and class applier set/release functions don't go over fevs. The calls must be only on the local node.


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


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.