On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:59:23AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > I agree that it makes sense for the opdown byte in struct ccm to have > > this inverted sense for compatibility. ?Maybe it makes sense for > > cfm_get_opdown(), too, since then it has the same sense as > > cfm_get_fault(). > > I kind of wish I had called cfm_get_fault cfm_get_status and used a > positive name from the beginning in retrospect. I don't have a strong > opinion either way on what the module accessor should be called. I > can think of good reasons for either choice.
If there are good reasons both ways, then let's save work and leave it as-is. > > > > struct cfm now has a ton of "bool" members, I wonder when it makes > > sense to start using a bitmask (or even bitfields)? > > > > Should we report remote_opdown in the database? ?I guess it would have > > to be true if any remote MP was down, so maybe it isn't granular > > enough to be useful. > > I plan in the relatively near future to expose a lot more data about > the state of the CFM machine to the controller. I think that may be a > logical time to convert to a bitmask so it can be easily passed up to > the bridge. I think remote_opdown would be a logical thing to pass up > as well, but I think I'll hold off and push everything up in one patch > series. OK. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
