On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:53:50PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Niels van Adrichem <n.l.m.vanadric...@tudelft.nl> > > > > > > Thanks. I applied this. It is definitely an improvement. > > > > > > There are two ways that we should continue to improve it, though. One > > > is incremental: CFM, as well as BFD, should control forwarding. > > > > Hey Ben, could you explain more on this 'incremental'? > > > > I think with this commit, the bfd does control the forwarding of group > > action > > in the following way: > > 1. when bfd forwarding flag flaps, it changes the global sequence number. > > 2. as reaction to global sequence number change, port_run() is executed. > > 3. if the port_run() execution finds that the 'ofport->may_enable' flaps > and > > sets the 'backer->need_revalidate'. > > 4. the set of 'backer->need_revalidate' causes the dp flow revalidation > and > > changes the forwarding of group action. > > > > Does this make sense? > > I think that that is correct. I mean that we should also support CFM, > not just BFD, here. >
Sounds like we should just use the ofport->may_enable,? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
