[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for amfd: return ok for ccb complete cb for csi delete from standby [#1671]

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

Summary: amfd: return ok for ccb complete cb for csi delete from standby [#1671] 
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1671 
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Nagendra 
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 0284d9eb4040d1c3970749c7f9142c3a9e7cb447
Author:	pra...@or...
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:42:42 +0530

	amfd: return ok for ccb complete cb for csi delete from standby [#1671]

	Standby amfd crashes in ccb apply callback for su.

	In the reported problem, one csi and one su is deleted in a single ccb.
	Standby amfd returns BAD_OPERATION for csi completed callabck as csi deleted
	in the mbcsv checkpointing. Due to this other ccb completed callback for su
	is not executed and standby amfd does not remember su pointer. Since active
	amfd has accepted CCB, standby amfd also gets the apply callback. Here it
	crashes in CCB apply callback for su. To be noted: IMM honors return status
	of completed callback from active amfd only.

	Patch fixes the problem by not performing any validation on ccb completed
	callback for csi at standby amfd.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/csi.cc |  9 +++++----
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
Testing in progress.

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


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.