On Mon, 29 May 2017 11:37:22 -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > What you say looks correct..., but does not hurt to leave this check in > there.. > given rest of the changes you are proposing below.
I agree with Mark that the check is superfluous and should not be there. > Looking at git blame, this check was added for OVS in dellink...but it > could have been because > it was being called before stop in dellink. The code at that time did not use rtnl ops to create/delete the tunnel and was refactored meanwhile. The conditions from that time do not hold anymore. > That seems right. It does look redundant if we hit the same code via > vxlan_stop during dellink. > > This code is also hit via the OVS path, and i don't see a problem with > your changes and analysis but i am not too familiar with the ovs call > path. I see that the relevant developers are CC'ed. I think it's okay. Thanks! Jiri
