On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 07:35:21PM +0300, Alexandru Copot wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:28:29PM +0300, Alexandru Copot wrote: > >> Allow port_mod messages in a bundle and apply them to copies > >> of struct ofport. The final state is commited to the original > >> data structure and notifications are sent. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Copot <alex.miha...@gmail.com> > >> Cc: Daniel Baluta <dbal...@ixiacom.com> > > > > Why can a port be part of only one bundle? > > Because I am thinking that if you need to make several changes > to a port you can group them in a bundle. It's a way of serializing > access to a port between controllers. Later it could be used to make > sure the port won't disappear until the bundle is committed.
Sorry that I took so long to reply. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to prevent bundles from overlapping. This will be much harder to do for flows, since for example a single "delete" in one bundle can wipe out all the flows added or modified by a different bundle. What do you plan to do for flows? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
