Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/06/2016 10:51:57 AM:
> From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Date: 06/06/2016 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev, v17, 5/5] Add incremental proessing to > lflow_run and physical_run > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/03/2016 10:55:53 AM: > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > > > Date: 06/03/2016 10:56 AM > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev, v17, 5/5] Add incremental proessing to > > > lflow_run and physical_run > > > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:36:22PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > This code changes to allow incremental processing of the > > > > logical flow and physical binding tables whenver possible. > > > > > > > > Side Effects: > > > > - Make flow table persistent in ovn controller > > > > - Reset lflow processing when adding/removing patch ports > > > > > > > > Note: flows created by physical_run for multicast_groups are > > > > *NOT* handled incrementally due to to be solved issues > > > > with GWs and local routers. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > > > > This seems quite reasonable. > > > > > > The changes to physical.c are large. Are they mostly moving code > > > around? > > > > Unfortunately, yes they are - I'm wondering if I'm better off > > doing a couple of "refactoring" patches in the series where I extract > > the code that will be used in both the FOR_EACH and FOR_EACH blocks > > (I'm open to suggestions)... > > I'm OK with moving code around, but please add something to the commit > message mentioning that's what happening. It makes the commit easier to > review because I'm not spending time trying to compare blocks of code > that are actually the same. Will do... Ryan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
