On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Neil McKee <neil.mc...@inmon.com> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/actions.c b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>>>> index b491c1c..ee5760d 100644
>>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>>>> @@ -608,7 +608,8 @@ static void do_output(struct datapath *dp, struct
>>>> sk_buff *skb, int out_port)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int output_userspace(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>> - struct sw_flow_key *key, const struct nlattr
>>>> *attr)
>>>> + struct sw_flow_key *key, const struct nlattr
>>>> *attr,
>>>> + const struct nlattr *actions, int actions_len)
>>>> {
>>>> struct ovs_tunnel_info info;
>>>> struct dp_upcall_info upcall;
>>>> @@ -619,6 +620,8 @@ static int output_userspace(struct datapath *dp,
>>>> struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>> upcall.userdata = NULL;
>>>> upcall.portid = 0;
>>>> upcall.egress_tun_info = NULL;
>>>> + upcall.actions = actions;
>>>> + upcall.actions_len = actions_len;
>>>>
>>> Rather than unconditionally passing actions to the upcall, there
>>> should be attribute in ovs_userspace_attr to request the actions list.
>>
>> Why? It seems simpler to just always pass the actions and I'm not sure
>> that this is really performance critical (which is the only reason
>> that comes to mind to not always pass this).
>
> This is only required for sFlow sampling so I do not think we should
> send it on every upcall.
But what is the downside?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
