FWIW, it looked fine to me.
--Justin
On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote:
> FYI, I accidentally merged this without review. Justin's looking at
> it now. If it gets anything other than a "looks good", I'll revert
> it. My bad, sorry.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> In the standard case, rate limiting facet_learn() to once ever
>> 500ms, makes sense. The worst that can happen is a learning entry
>> is expired half a second to early. However, when using
>> fin_timeouts, we really need react quickly to delete the newly
>> stale flow.
>>
>> Bug #15915.
>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com>
>> ---
>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
>> index 32ed091..47830c1 100644
>> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
>> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
>> @@ -4585,13 +4585,14 @@ facet_learn(struct facet *facet)
>> struct ofproto_dpif *ofproto =
>> ofproto_dpif_cast(facet->rule->up.ofproto);
>> struct subfacet *subfacet= CONTAINER_OF(list_front(&facet->subfacets),
>> struct subfacet, list_node);
>> + long long int now = time_msec();
>> struct action_xlate_ctx ctx;
>>
>> - if (time_msec() < facet->learn_rl) {
>> + if (!facet->has_fin_timeout && now < facet->learn_rl) {
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - facet->learn_rl = time_msec() + 500;
>> + facet->learn_rl = now + 500;
>>
>> if (!facet->has_learn
>> && !facet->has_normal
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
