Yes, if you're happy with that then it sounds good to me.
On 10 December 2013 12:51, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote: >> I believe that in this case, the sensible place to update >> bfd->forwarding is in bfd_run(), however this is not currently >> happening. I suggest ensuring that bfd_forwarding__() happens in every >> bfd_run(), not only when the detect_timer expires. > > You need bfd_forwarding__ to be called because it updates the global change > seq? > > At any rate, could you write up a patch which does this and fold it > into your series? It sounds reasonable. > > Ethan > >> >> On 10 December 2013 10:09, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> There is a minor test failure with this latest version and my patches, >>> but I am happy that this due to problems with the testsuite and not >>> this patch. I'll send an update for my relevant patch. >>> >>> On 9 December 2013 17:36, Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>> The only thing is I didn't follow is: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> Do we really still need the bfd_forwarding_if_rx_update() function? >>>> It's so short and only called in this one place, could we just move >>>> it's code there? >>>> """ >>>> >>>> Since there are two other places where bfd_forwarding_if_rx_update() are >>>> called, and I think they are necessary. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dev mailing list >>>> dev@openvswitch.org >>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
