[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: fix introduceMsg resent in every 0.1 second [#2959]

[Vu M. N. <vu....@de...>]

Summary: imm: fix introduceMsg resent in every 0.1 second [#2959]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2959
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Hans, Gary
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2959
Base revision: 5bb2174a323a97f626ce354d553a1dc4d1673899
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review

--------------------------------
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

NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers

Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***

revision ae7c71cf5621e78fbeffece3b65184d5829938ac
Author:	Vu Minh Nguyen <vu....@de...>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:50:18 +0700

imm: fix introduceMsg resent in every 0.1 second [#2959]

It is expected that resending introduceMsg should happen every 05 seconds
if the previous send has not yet received the response e.g because of having
network issue or having the active IMMD unresponsive. However, in some cases,
the re-send is done every 0.1 second.

This patch adds a few code to make the logic work as expectation.



Complete diffstat:
------------------
 src/imm/immnd/immnd_proc.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
1) Stop active IMMD for a while
pkill -STOP osafimmd
2) Kill an osafimmnd on PL-3
pkill osafimmnd

Then observe the syslog of PL-3

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
IntroduceMsg is resent every 05 seconds.


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from peer reviewers


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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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.