Thanks for pointing out the reason. That makes sense.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:40:17PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Looking at it more carefully now, I realize why I put it in bridge > reconfigure. In port_reconfigure, interfaces do not necessarily have > their netdevs initialized yet. Monitoring setup has to happen after > they are initialized in bridge reconfigure. > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Ethan Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Artifact of monitoring being done as part of bonding. ?I added the > > monitors neer port_update_bonding. ?No particular reason other than > > history. I will go ahead and change it. > > > > Ethan > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:03:16PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >>> The monitoring logic and bonding code are unrelated. ?This commit > >>> pulls the monitoring logic out. ?As a result all interfaces, not > >>> just those participating in bonds, are monitored. ?This will be > >>> required to run LACP on non-bonded ports. > >>> > >>> Also removes the miimon flag from the port structure. > >> > >> This looks OK to me, but one bit stuck out to me as not fitting in > >> well. ?The patch adds code to bridge_reconfigure() to call > >> netdev_monitor_add() for each interface that should be monitored. ?I'm > >> curious about why it goes in there and not, for example, in > >> port_reconfigure(), which to my mind would be a more natural place > >> (since that's the code that creates or destroys the monitor itself). > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Ben. > >> > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
