On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:06:11AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 06/05/14 at 10:02pm, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > This commit finishes the removal of asynchronous flow table operations
> > begun in the previous commit, by removing ofoperation and ofopgroup
> > entirely and all of the code that depended on them. Following this commit,
> > all the internal documentation and comments should again be consistent and
> > correct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
>
> Looks sane, minor comment below. I suggest someone else with better
> understanding of this code does a review as well.
>
> > ---
> > ofproto/connmgr.c | 4 +
> > ofproto/ofproto-provider.h | 124 ++------
> > ofproto/ofproto.c | 690
> > ++++++++++-----------------------------------
> > 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 648 deletions(-)
>
> > @@ -1263,17 +1180,9 @@ void
> > ofproto_rule_delete(struct ofproto *ofproto, struct rule *rule)
> > OVS_EXCLUDED(ofproto_mutex)
> > {
> > - struct ofopgroup *group;
> > - struct ofoperation *op;
> > -
> > ovs_mutex_lock(&ofproto_mutex);
> > - group = ofopgroup_create_unattached(ofproto);
> > - op = ofoperation_create(group, rule, OFOPERATION_DELETE, OFPRR_DELETE);
> > oftable_remove_rule__(ofproto, rule);
> > ofproto->ofproto_class->rule_delete(rule);
> > - ofoperation_complete(op, 0);
> > - ofopgroup_submit(group);
> > -
> > ovs_mutex_unlock(&ofproto_mutex);
>
> Does this need a ofmonitor_flush() as in ofproto_rule_delete__()?
I skipped the bits for OpenFlow notifications in this case
intentionally, since the switch is doomed. This is not obvious, so
I'll add a comment:
/* This skips the ofmonitor and flow-removed notifications because the
* switch is being deleted and any OpenFlow channels have been or soon will
* be killed. */
Thanks,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
