[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm:Allow deletion of dangling ref object, when the object is modified by clearing NO_DANGLING attribute in same CCB [#1599]

[<red...@or...>]

Summary:imm:Allow deletion of dangling ref object, when the object is modified by clearing NO_DANGLING attribute in same CCB [#1599] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1599
Peer Reviewer(s): zoran, Hung
Affected branch(es):4.6.x, 4.7.x, default
Development branch:4.7.x

--------------------------------
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 51307de2b9b87365dd7c58c5567196db3b77d798
Author:	Neelakanta Reddy
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:18:13 +0530

	imm:Allow deletion of dangling ref object, when the object is modified by
	clearing NO_DANGLING attribute in same CCB [#1599]

	If the NO_DANGLING reference is modified(removed) in the same CCB, then
	deletion of the NO_DANGLING object can be allowed because, we are in apply
	and the CCBcommit will modify sReverseRefsNoDanglingMMap.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc |  20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
As explained in ticket.

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
ccb-apply should not fail.

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

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.