> On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:07:22PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: >> >>> On Sep 5, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:39:01PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: >>>> Introduce a new "direction" column to the ACL table that accepts the >>>> values "to-lport" and "from-lport". Also reserve the ACL priority 65535 >>>> for return traffic associated with the "allow-related" action. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> >>> >>> I'd prefer to squash this with the commit (presumably patch 2/2) that >>> actually implements the newly documented behavior. >> >> As you noted in the follow-up message, the implementation is actually in the >> patch that adds "allow-related" support. There's no reason not to add >> support now; it just didn't occur to me based on the order I was working on >> these patches. I've appended an incremental that add the support. Does it >> look reasonable? >> >>> Here: >>> >>> <ref table="Logical_Flow" db="OVN_Southbound"/> table. The >>> <code>outport</code> logical port is only available in the >>> <code>to-lport</code> direction. >>> >>> I'd consider adding a parenthetical to make it perfectly clear, e.g.: >>> >>> <ref table="Logical_Flow" db="OVN_Southbound"/> table. The >>> <code>outport</code> logical port is only available in the >>> <code>to-lport</code> direction (the <code>inport</code> is >>> available in both directions). >> >> Okay, I updated it. >> >>> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> >> >> Thanks. If the incremental looks good, I'll push the series. > > The incremental looks good (and smaller than I expected).
I'm that good. Thanks for the reviews. I pushed the series. --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
