On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 06:47:56PM +0000, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote: > On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 09:37:30AM -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >> Garbage collect tnl_backers during type_run(). Add new > >> tnl_backers if a VXLAN ports UDP port changes. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kyle Mestery <kmest...@cisco.com> > > > > The error handling here is bad. If it fails to add or remove a port, > > then ovs_assert() aborts the whole ovs-vswitchd process. > > > I can change the asserts into something more sane. > > > But I don't fully understand the code. It looks to me like the first > > time we encounter a particular dp_port_name in the inner HMAP_FOR_EACH, > > we transfer that dp_port_name from tmp_simap to backer->tnl_backers. > > Straightforward enough. However, I believe that the second time we > > encounter that same dp_port_name, we will not find it in tmp_simap > > (because we deleted it) and will therefore try to add a new port for > > it. I believe that will fail, because there is already a port with > > that dst_port, and then we'll assert-fail the process. > > > > Am I reading the code correctly? > > > Actually, the second time the same dp_port_name is encountered, > we first look and see if we need to reconfigure it, and then we check if > it's already in backer->tnl_backers, which it will be since we added it > there the first time we found it. I don't see it adding the port twice, unless > I'm misreading it.
Looking again, you're right, thanks. > > I've now pushed patch 1-4 to master, waiting for an ack from Jesse on > > #5, waiting for your reply on this one. > > > Thanks Ben! Let me know if you want me to modify the error handling > behavior. Please do, I'm not sure of the correct behavior. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
