"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/18/2016 01:30:10 PM:
> From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > To: dev@openvswitch.org > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > Date: 07/18/2016 01:30 PM > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] ovn: Make it possible for CMS to > detect when the OVN system is up-to-date. > Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> > > Until now, there has been no reliable for the CMS (or ovn-nbctl, or > anything else) to detect when changes made to the northbound configuration > have been passed through to the southbound database or to the hypervisors. > This commit adds this feature to the system, by adding sequence numbers > to the northbound and southbound databases and adding code in ovn-nbctl, > ovn-northd, and ovn-controller to keep those sequence numbers up-to-date. > > The biggest user-visible change from this commit is new a new option > --wait to ovn-nbctl. With --wait=sb, ovn-nbctl now waits for ovn-northd > to update the southbound database; with --wait=hv, it waits for the > changes to make their way to Open vSwitch on every hypervisor. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > --- Hey Ben, while I like this patch, it is going to put incremental processing in merge conflict (again) if it lands first. I've put together a rebased version of this patch that sits on top of the remaining pieces of incremental processing and passes both compile and unit tests. Am I breaking process if I submit it as V3 with an updated commit message and an acked by even though I rebased it? Ryan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
