Do you have any preference for where this lives?
On 20 November 2013 14:45, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:50:42PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote: >> On 20 November 2013 11:15, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > I think that it is a little surprising to use a netdev sequence number >> > to track changes to things that are not network devices. If we are >> > going to do that, then I think we need to document it somewhere to make >> > it harder to surprise developers. Another alternative would be to add a >> > sequence number for each object type (cfm, bfd, lacp, stp?). (If we did >> > that, then it would also solve the ordering dependency issue I mentioned >> > above.) >> >> I agree that it is surprising. From a code readability standpoint, the >> name doesn't really match "something told us that a port has gone >> up/down, whether locally or remote". A better name and some >> documentation could fix this. Perhaps "connectivity_change_seq"? And >> this could be moved to somewhere less netdev-specific, but still >> accessible to bridge and ofproto. > > I think that's a good option. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
