On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:37:31AM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > Why shouldn't we give up in trace, as we do in the packet receive > > path, if the port can't be found? "trace" is supposed to match the > > packet receive path (otherwise it isn't as useful). I guess the > > reason is that we don't have to, since the user specified the ofproto > > name, but I think that we should anyway. > > > > There seems to be some contention on this point. Currently, the unit tests > rely on this behavior. Specifically, you can do a trace without specifying > an in_port and it will implicitly use OFPP_NONE. In previous rounds of > review, I had suggested that we remove this option, and require a valid > in_port to trace. Jesse suggested that this feature is important. I > really don't care either way. Could you two please make a decision on the > point?
We have to be able to deal with flows that have no in_port to support OpenFlow "ofp_packet_out", which allows no in_port to be specified. But that's different from "trace" because ofp_packet_out doesn't do a flow table lookup (it includes its own list of actions). I'm not sure that it's really necessary to support "no input port" here. Jesse, comments? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
