On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:32:21AM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 04:13:37PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote: > >> I saw few other occurrences where ovs-vsctl is being called with > >> --timeout, Though, I am not sure how safe or necessary it would be to > >> remove --timeout everywhere at this time. > > > > It seems entirely safe to me when --no-wait is in use or the command is > > just a query (that is, it does not modify the database). Without > > --no-wait, a command that modifies the database can still hang > > "forever" if ovs-vswitchd is not running. I tried to be selective and > > remove the timeouts only in the former case. > > > > We can probably write another patch to make ovs-vsctl detect if > > ovs-vswitchd is not running and not wait for it to reconfigure in that > > case even without --no-wait. > > > >> Also I am wondering, if someone depended on default behaviour > >> (without --retry flag) to be "retry forever". We will see this > >> soon. Probably libvirt will be able to make use of this "retry once" > >> approach. > > > > It is definitely a change in behavior. I hope that it does not break > > anything, but it is possible. If it causes serious problems, we can > > revert it. Still, I think that it is worth the risk because the new > > behavior is IMO less surprising than the old behavior. > > > >> Besides those 3 small things I already commented this patch looks good to > >> me! > > > > I guess there aren't any followup patches needed after all. Please > > let me know if you spot anything wrong. > > I don't think that any additional patches are required here. Assuming > that you fixed those 3 small things.
I did. Thanks! _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
