> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:57:29PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> hi, >> >> > + * Due to the sample action there may be multiple possible eth types. >> > + * In order to correctly validate actions all possible types are tracked >> > + * and verified. This is done using struct eth_types. >> >> is there any real-world use cases of these actions inside a sample? >> otherwise, how about just rejecting such combinations? >> it doesn't seem to worth the code complexity to me. >> (sorry if it has been already discussed. it's the first time for me >> to seriously read this long-lived patch.) > > Good point, the code is rather complex. > > My understanding is that it comes into effect in the case > of sflow or ipfix being configured on the bridge. I tend > to think these are real-world use-cases, though that thinking > is by no means fixed. > > My reading of the code is that in the case of sflow and ipfix a single > sample rule appears at the beginning of the flow. And that it may be > possible to replace the code that you are referring to with something > simpler to handle these cases.
it seems that they put only a userland action inside a sample. it's what i expected from its name "sample". > > My understanding is that the code you are referring to also comes into > effect when a sample action (a Nicira extension) is used directly in a > rule. I am less sure that this is a real-world case but the complex logic > you are referring to should to handle this use-case. probably nicira folks can clarify? YAMAMOTO Takashi _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
