Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for ntf/imcn: handle ERR_TIME_OUT returned by saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2 [#1689]

[Lennart L. <len...@er...>]

Hi Praveen,

Ack

Note:
The general concept for error handling in ntfimcn is to exit the imcn process (imcn_exit(...)), or if an error that should not happen do an osafassert (results in abort).
The imcn process is supervised by the ntf process and will be restarted if it exit or abort. If this happen a special notification is sent out when it's started again.
In this case it is good to also "try again" if timeout.

Thanks
Lennart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pra...@or... [mailto:pra...@or...]
> Sent: den 4 mars 2016 11:01
> To: Lennart Lund; Minh Chau H
> Cc: ope...@li...
> Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for ntf/imcn: handle ERR_TIME_OUT
> returned by saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2 [#1689]
> 
> Summary: ntf/imcn: handle ERR_TIME_OUT returned by
> saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2 [#1689]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1689
> Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Minh,
> 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            n
>  OpenSAF services        y
>  Core libraries          n
>  Samples                 n
>  Tests                   n
>  Other                   n
> 
> 
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> changeset 4626274aad327cea1e1d6fff4fef16bb445a6343
> Author:	pra...@or...
> Date:	Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:22:26 +0530
> 
> 	ntf/imcn: handle ERR_TIME_OUT returned by
> saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2
> 	[#1689]
> 
> 	For getting rdn attribute name, IMCN calls
> saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2()
> 	API. If this API returns ERR-TIME_OUT, IMCN is not giving a
> retry and
> 	asserts. Currently IMCN give a retry only when its gets
> ERR_TRY_AGAIN. Also
> 	above API call will allocate memroy for class description that
> will be freed
> 	by application (here IMCN) by calling
> saImmOmClassDescriptionMemoryFree().
> 	This API never returns TRY_AGAIN as per IMM spec, so retry
> loop for this API
> 	in ntfimcn_imm.c can be removed.
> 
> 	Patch fixes the problem by handling ERR_TIME_OUT returned
> by
> 	saImmOmClassDescriptionGet_2.
> 
> 
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
>  osaf/services/saf/ntfsv/ntfimcnd/ntfimcn_imm.c |  9 ++-------
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> 1)Bring up one controller with below patch.
> diff --git a/osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c
> b/osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c
> --- a/osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c
> +++ b/osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c
> @@ -1914,6 +1914,7 @@ static uint32_t immnd_evt_proc_class_des
>                 send_evt.info.imma.info.errRsp.error = error;
>         }
> 
> +       sleep(1);
>         rc = immnd_mds_send_rsp(cb, sinfo, &send_evt);
>         /*Deallocate the extras on the send_message */
>         IMMSV_ATTR_DEF_LIST *p =
> send_evt.info.imma.info.classDescr.attrDefinitions;
> 
> 2)From OpenSAF staging repo run this command
> immcfg -f tests/ntfsv/ntfsv_test_classes.xml
> This will create test classes.
> 3)Now create a object of the command
>  immcfg -c "OsafNtfCmTestCFG" stringRdnCfg=object1 -a testAnyCfg=1 -a
> testNameCfg=name1 -a testStringCfg=string1
> 
> 
> 
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> In the third step, object creation will take some time but eventually it will be
> successful.
> 
> 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.