On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:09:30PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> With two questions for clarification below,
>
> Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org>
Thanks, applied.
> > On Jan 18, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote:
> > - if (cookie) {
> > - pin->cookie = *cookie;
> > - }
> > + *buffer_id = ntohl(opi->buffer_id);
> > + *total_len = ntohs(opi->total_len);
> > + pin->cookie = cookie ? *cookie : OVS_BE64_MAX;
>
> Is this a bug fix in case there was no cookie?
Oops, no, the change from an "if" to an assignment is pointless.
Reverted.
> > + struct ovs_list txq;
> > + bool is_miss = (pin->up.reason == OFPR_NO_MATCH ||
> > + pin->up.reason == OFPR_EXPLICIT_MISS ||
> > + pin->up.reason == OFPR_IMPLICIT_MISS);
> > + pinsched_send(ofconn->schedulers[is_miss],
> > + pin->up.flow_metadata.flow.in_port.ofp_port /* XXX
> > */,
>
> I see you added the ‘XXX’. What’s wrong or risky about this?
Nothing. This is detritus from a bigger change I'd intended to make.
Reverted.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
