On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) > <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >> On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) >>> <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>>> Now that both the kernel and userspace can handle information about >>>>> the tunnel outer headers this adds userspace support for communicating >>>>> between the two. At the moment userspace doesn't know how to do >>>>> anything with the extra information on receive and will only generate >>>>> actions containing tun_id. However, both sides know how to ignore the >>>>> extra information. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> The patch I just submitted overlaps with this patch a little bit. I think >>>> there wasn't >>>> a really set delineation between what I was doing and what you were doing, >>>> so >>>> we may have to merge this patch with mine. I think we both pretty much made >>>> similar changes though, so it shouldn't be too bad. Acking this patch for >>>> now, >>>> assuming we'll work through the merge bits. >>> >>> I agree the changes are pretty similar. My inclination is that it's a >>> little easier to use the version in my patch if that's OK with you for >>> a couple of reasons: >>> * I'm not sure that the change logically belongs in the second patch >>> of your series. It could be moved into the first patch though. >>> * There isn't much benefit to userspace supporting both models of >>> kernel tunnel implementation because the kernel will reject any >>> actions that it doesn't understand. As a result, once this patch goes >>> in we will immediately require a new version of the kernel module. >>> Ideally I'd like to push that requirement back as late as practical so >>> that we can start applying patches without worrying about breaking >>> compatibility more than necessary. However, when we do put it in, we >>> might as well go all the way and drop support for the old mechanism in >>> userspace. >> >> That makes sense to me. Do you want me to rebase my first patch and fold this >> one into that? I can then rework my second patch based on this. Or even, we >> could move this patch as a second patch in my series, and I could just rebase >> my third patch. > > I actually don't think that much needs to be done - this patch depends > on the previous patch to do all the userspace flow changes and we > don't really want to roll all of them together. I would just drop the > odp-util.c changes from your second patch and then your patches fit in > right before my series. That will avoid the conflict and shouldn't > have any dependency problems. > OK, got it.
> I haven't had a chance to review your patches that closely yet but my > impression is that the bulk of the second patch doesn't have any > changes visible to userspace. Is that right? That's correct. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
