On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:03:05AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote: >> Commit acf608 (ofproto-dpif: Use a single underlying datapath across >> multiple bridges.) causes datapath flows from deleted ports to not be >> removed. The issue is that the code that bulk deletes old flows doesn't >> know the datapath port number that makes up the datapath flow >> definition. This commit keeps track of the datapath port in the facet >> for use when the datapath flow eventually needs to be removed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> > > This seems OK, but I wonder whether odp_in_port is more naturally a > member of struct subfacet, since that is tied more closely to kernel > flows than struct facet? (I almost claimed that we could recover the > ODP in_port from the subfacet's ->key nlattrs without adding a new > member, but we discard that information in the common case.)
I thought about putting it with the subfacet, but I figured it would always be the same in both, but there are potentially more subfacets than facets, so it seems like it used less memory. Are there cases where the in_port would look different from subfacet to subfacet in the same facet? --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
