On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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.
I sent a revised version with error handling in lieu of ovs_asserts() for port creation and deletion. For the netdev_get_tunnel_config() assert, Ethan indicated that should never happen, so I'd rather leave that as an ovs_assert(). Thanks, Kyle _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
