On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:24:02PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> I like this! Much clearer, especially when comparing to the upcall
> processing in the past monolithic ofproto-dpif.
>
> One small comment about a comment below,
>
> Jarno
>
> Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
Thanks for the review, see below also.
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > - /* Process each element in the to-do list, constructing the set of
> > - * operations to batch. */
> > + /* Now handle each packet individually:
> > + *
> > + * - In the common case, the packet is a member of a flow that
> > doesn't
> > + * need per-packet translation. We already did the translation in
> > the
> > + * previous loop, so reuse it.
> > + *
> > + * - Otherwise, we need to do another translation just for this
> > + * packet.
>
> I would find it a bit clearer, if the above comment was replaced with
> something like this:
>
> /* Now handle each packet in the order they were received:
> *
> * - In the common case each packet of a miss can share the same actions
> *
> * - Slow-pathed packets, however, need to be translated individually. (it
> would be nice to know why?)
> *
How about this:
/* Now handle the packets individuallys in order of arrival. In the common
* case each packet of a miss can share the same actions, but slow-pathed
* packets need to be translated individually:
*
* - For SLOW_CFM, SLOW_LACP, SLOW_STP, and SLOW_BFD, translation is what
* processes received packets for these protocols.
*
* - For SLOW_CONTROLLER, translation sends the packet to the OpenFlow
* controller.
*
* The loop fills 'ops' with an array of operations to execute in the
* datapath. */
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
