> @@ -1788,26 +1815,21 @@ ofproto_delete_flow(struct ofproto *ofproto,
> struct classifier *cls = &ofproto->tables[0].cls;
> struct rule *rule;
>
> + /* First do a cheap check whether the rule we're looking for has already
> + * been deleted. If so, then we're done. */
> ovs_rwlock_rdlock(&cls->rwlock);
> rule = rule_from_cls_rule(classifier_find_match_exactly(cls, target,
> priority));
> ovs_rwlock_unlock(&cls->rwlock);
> if (!rule) {
> - /* No such rule -> success. */
> - return true;
> - } else if (rule->pending) {
> - /* An operation on the rule is already pending -> failure.
> - * Caller must retry later if it's important. */
> - return false;
> - } else {
> - /* Initiate deletion -> success. */
> - ovs_rwlock_wrlock(&cls->rwlock);
> - ofproto_rule_delete(ofproto, cls, rule);
> - ovs_rwlock_unlock(&cls->rwlock);
> -
> return true;
> }
>
> + /* Fall back to a executing a full flow mod. We can't optimize this at
> all
> + * because we didn't take enough locks above to ensure that the flow
> table
> + * didn't already change beneath us. */
> + return simple_flow_mod(ofproto, target, priority, NULL, 0,
> + OFPFC_DELETE_STRICT) != OFPROTO_POSTPONE;
> }
this seems wrong to me. ofproto_delete_flow is used to remove hidden rules.
the new code ends up to use collect_rules_strict which skips hidden rules.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
