[Openais] Crashing because all SU not yet operational

Steven Dake sdake at redhat.com
Mon Sep 4 23:15:24 PDT 2006


Hans,

Please commit all AMF work that you have completed and feel comfortable
is solid.  If the patch touches a common section of code, please remind
me of the patch (by posting again if you could) and I'll take a look.

Thanks
-steve

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:50 +0200, Hans Feldt wrote:
> This problem is related to the patch sent by Lars, "Amf node leave and 
> join #2" which will probably solve your problem. Please test with that 
> patch or wait until we have committed it.
> 
> Another thing: please include AMF (if AMF related) in the subject line 
> of your emails to the list, easier for people to find and filter...
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > The next crash I got is when all components have been initiated and when
> > it try to start up things.
> > 
> > Here is a log of what happens:
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693455 [sync.c:0318] This node is within the primary
> > component and will provide service.
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693580 [clm.c:0510] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693634 [clm.c:0511] New Configuration:
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693693 [clm.c:0513]     r(0) ip(192.168.0.1)
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693769 [clm.c:0515] Members Left:
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693823 [clm.c:0520] Members Joined:
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693879 [clm.c:0522]     r(0) ip(192.168.0.1)
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.693940 [sync.c:0318] This node is within the primary
> > component and will provide service.
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.694026 [totemsrp.c:1607] entering OPERATIONAL state.
> > Sep  1 14:45:50.701111 [clm.c:0605] got nodejoin message 192.168.0.1
> > Hello world from
> > safComp=OAM-C-1,safSu=OAM-SU-1,safSg=SS7-SG-1,safApp=SS7-A-1
> > 
> >>>WARNING<< Timestamp: 1157121953:807037
> > 
> > ProcessType:SequenceNumber  161:1
> >     CP:0  ss7osdpn.c   2690     0  1295     0     0     0    1102
> > 
> > 
> > Sep  1 14:45:53.727109 [amfcluster.c:0130] Cluster: starting applications.
> > (inservice=0) (active_sus_needed=1) (standby_sus_needed=1)
> > assignment VI - partial assignment with SIs drop outs
> > (inservice=0) (assigning active=1) (assigning standby=0) (assigning
> > spares=0)
> > su_active_assign=1, si_total=1,ass_to_su=1
> > while su...1 != 2, 0 == 1, 0 > 0
> > Not in service.
> > while su...1 != 2, 0 == 1, 0 > 0
> > Not in service.
> > No one to assign. No SU in service yet.
> > 
> > 
> > The last lines are my local changes to make sure that it do not crash.
> > However what I determined is that nothing will be started anyway as the
> > service units are not in service...
> > 
> > This is a scetch patch from the local changes that I have done. I have
> > removed manually from the patch output all the print statements that I
> > had, so it may not apply cleanly.
> > 
> > ===================================================================
> > --- exec/amfsg.c        (revision 1235)
> > +++ exec/amfsg.c        (working copy)
> > @@ -964,6 +971,7 @@
> >                         amf_su_get_saAmfSUNumCurrStandbySIs (su) > 0) {
> > 
> >                         su = su->next;
> > +                        printf("Not in service.\n");
> >                         continue; /* Not in service */
> >                 }
> > 
> > @@ -1118,15 +1127,18 @@
> >          */
> >         inservice_count = (float)su_inservice_count_get (sg);
> > 
> > -       active_sus_needed = div_round (
> > -               sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefActiveSUs,
> > -               sg->saAmfSGMaxActiveSIsperSUs);
> > +        active_sus_needed = div_round (
> > +            sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefActiveSUs,
> > +            sg->saAmfSGMaxActiveSIsperSUs);
> > 
> > -       standby_sus_needed = div_round (
> > +        standby_sus_needed = 0;
> > +        if (sg->saAmfSGMaxStandbySIsperSUs > 0) {
> > +            standby_sus_needed = div_round (
> >                 sg_si_count_get (sg) * sg->saAmfSGNumPrefStandbySUs,
> >                 sg->saAmfSGMaxStandbySIsperSUs);
> > +        }
> > 
> > and then around
> > 
> > @@ -1166,29 +1178,30 @@
> > -       assert (assigned > 0);
> > +       /*assert (assigned > 0);*/
> > +        printf("No one to assign. No SU in service yet.\n");
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So what I want to know, is why the SU may not be considered operational
> > and if I have done something wrong with my AMF application.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > // Ola
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openais mailing list
> Openais at lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/openais




More information about the Openais mailing list