On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:44:19AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:54:42PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >> With the small nits below:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
> >
> > Thanks. I fixed up everything you mentioned and applied this to master.
> >
> > I gave details below; the only bit where I think you might want followup
> > is on the treatment of OFPACT_CONJUNCTION in action translation (see
> > below).
>
> (snip)
>
> >>> @@ -4055,6 +4056,9 @@ do_xlate_actions(const struct ofpact *ofpacts,
> >>> size_t ofpacts_len,
> >>> xlate_learn_action(ctx, ofpact_get_LEARN(a));
> >>> break;
> >>>
> >>> + case OFPACT_CONJUNCTION:
> >>> + break;
> >>> +
> >>
> >> This should never happen, do you consider OVS_NOT_REACHED() too risky?
> >
> > I think it's too risky because not every action execution comes as a
> > result of a classifier lookup. We don't prevent "conjunction" from
> > appearing in the actions in a "packet-out", for example. It's useless
> > there. We could ignore it, or go to some trouble to give some kind of
> > error. I decided to just ignore it. Maybe we should log it?
> >
>
> I hadn?t thought of the actions in packet out messages. A rate
> limited log message would be nice, just in case.
OK, I sent out a patch:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-January/050400.html
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
