On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > Commit b063d9f0 "datapath: Use unicast Netlink sockets for upcalls" that > > introduced an 'upcall_pid' member into struct dpif_linux_vport, struct > > dpif_linux_dp, and struct dpif_linux_flow neglected to do so only if the > > member was nonzero. ??This caused every datapath, vport, and flow operation > > to supply an upcall_pid. ??In particular, the netdev_set_config() called at > > startup when a vport already existed caused the upcall_pid for that vport > > to be reset to 0, which in turn caused all packets received on the vport to > > be dropped instead of forwarded to ovs-vswitchd. > > > > Reported-by: Shih-Hao Li <s...@nicira.com> > > I think we actually want to distinguish between unset and zero. When > the listen_mask indicates that a packet type shouldn't be received > then we intentionally generate an upcall_pid of 0 to shut off those > types of upcalls. Most of dpif-linux.c deals with this by simply > always including the appropriate upcall_pid but that was missed for > the calls in netdev-vport. At this point, nothing ever turns off > parts of listen_mask, so it doesn't really matter but that was the > intention.
I actually understood these two cases as I wrote up the commit, but I didn't see anything that currently needed to take advantage of it so I ignored it. I can fix it up to separate "no change" and "set to zero", though, if you prefer. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
