On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:18:49PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:24:38AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > >> It seems that the behaviour is not so intuitive. > >> cf. https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1346861 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp> > > > > I am not sure that I understand the bug report there. It might be > > reporting an actual bug in OVS. > > > > The goal of ovs-vswitchd regarding the database is to make sure that > > the state of the system is kept up-to-date with whatever is in the > > database. Maybe that bug report is saying, "If I have a port, and > > then I del-port/add-port that in a single transaction, ovs-vswitchd > > does not actually delete a port and then readd it at the datapath > > level." If it is saying that, then it is correct. But that could > > also happen if you use multiple transactions, because when it is busy > > ovs-vswitchd might "miss" some of the intermediate transactions and > > just implement the overall effect. > > i referred the bug report because it seems that the author of > original code mentioned in the bug expected it triggers re-creation > of the port. > > > > > The reason that two ovs-vsctl calls always deletes and readds a port > > is a little different: the first ovs-vsctl waits for its transaction > > to take effect before executing. If you use "--no-wait", then you > > just have two bare transactions and won't get the behavior of a > > del-port followed by an add-port 100% of the time. > > yes, it's my understanding. > how about the following?
The new version is very good. Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
