> On Mar 24, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:03:25PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
>
> I think that most of this is code refactoring that should cause visible
> change in behavior, with the exception of this change:
>
>> @@ -2731,6 +2739,7 @@ compose_output_action__(struct xlate_ctx *ctx,
>> ofp_port_t ofp_port,
>> if (xport->peer) {
>> const struct xport *peer = xport->peer;
>> struct flow old_flow = ctx->xin->flow;
>> + bool old_was_mpls = ctx->was_mpls;
>> enum slow_path_reason special;
>> uint8_t table_id =
>> rule_dpif_lookup_get_init_table_id(&ctx->xin->flow);
>> struct ofpbuf old_stack = ctx->stack;
>> @@ -2781,6 +2790,10 @@ compose_output_action__(struct xlate_ctx *ctx,
>> ofp_port_t ofp_port,
>> ofpbuf_uninit(&ctx->stack);
>> ctx->stack = old_stack;
>>
>> + /* The peer bridge popping MPLS should have no effect on the
>> original
>> + * bridge. */
>> + ctx->was_mpls = old_was_mpls;
>> +
>> /* The fact that the peer bridge exits (for any reason) does not mean
>> * that the original bridge should exit. Specifically, if the peer
>> * bridge recirculates (which typically modifies the packet), the
>
> If I'm correct about that, I'd consider making that a change of its own
> to call out the difference.
>
> Either way,
> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
>
> Thank you!
Thanks for the review. I pushed this to master as two separate patches, as
proposed.
Jarno
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
