On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > Can the STP_ROLE_* constants have some comments? Maybe "Port closest > > to root bridge.", "Forwards frames toward/away from root.", "Not used > > for forwarding." or similar. > > How about these explanations?
Yes, thank you. > > Should there be a role for "disabled" ports? I think that they are > > technically different from alternate ports. > > In the current code, a disabled port wouldn't be considered to have > a role. However, I think it would be better to still display a role > even if the port is disabled on a bridge running STP. I'll make > that change. Thanks. > The spec didn't provide a concise description of what's allowed in > the states, so I've also added the following patch: It's nice. The N and Y would be more visually distinguished if you changed N to something like -, e.g.: * FWD LRN TX_BPDU RX_BPDU * --- --- ------- ------- * Disabled Y - - - * Blocking - - - Y * Listening - - Y Y * Learning - Y Y Y * Forwarding Y Y Y Y Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
