On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:10:35PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > > On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:10:49PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> When modifying an existing datapath flow with recirculation actions, > >> the references to old (if any) recirculation actions need to be freed, > >> and references to new recirculation actions need to be stored. > >> > > Here, it wasn't obvious to me why the logic changed from only allocating > > a recirc_id if we have a packet, to always allocating one (don't we > > still need to reuse the recirc id from a previous translation?): > > The separation of the packet (upcall) and no packet (revalidation) was > suitable before we added the support for modifying datapath flows > in-place, when only actions change. Before, when doing revalidation > the produced actions were only used for comparison, but now they can > also be used as a replacement for the old datapath actions. This is > why we now need to allocate and hold a reference to a recirculation > context also when revalidating. The reference will be freed if the > actions are freed without installing them to an existing flow. Also, > the recirc_alloc_id_ctx() will reuse existing recirculation contexts > (and adding a reference) if possible. I’ll update the comment to > mention this.
If we always allocate a new recirc id, does that mean that the revalidated flow will always differ from the original one? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
