On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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?
I agree that flows will be much difficult to support. I think will just have to let them be part of multiple bundles and allow it to fail in case something changes. It seems to be a matter of enforcing this policy either at the switch level or at the controller. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
