On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> diff --git a/datapath/datapath.c b/datapath/datapath.c
> index 72cf9f6..2eedbf5 100644
> --- a/datapath/datapath.c
> +++ b/datapath/datapath.c
> +static int __rehash_flow_table(void *dummy)
> +{
> + struct datapath *dp;
> +
> +
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar
Thanks, this is definitely an improvement.
Acked-by: Jesse Gross
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> diff --git a/datapath/linux/compat/genetlink.inc
> b/datapath/linux/compat/genetlink.inc
> index bf96980..43c3227 100644
> --- a/datapath/linux/compat/genetlink.inc
> +++ b/datapath/linux/compat/genetlink.inc
> +static int genl_exec_cmd(st
Looks good.
I'm planning to get rid of this function entirely in the fairly near future.
Ethan
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 16:24, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> When a flow consists solely of an output to OFPP_CONTROLLER, we avoid a
> round trip to the kernel and back by calling execute_controller_action()
> f
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> > Could we just use the existing spinlock in sw_flow plus the 'dead'
>> >> > variable to ensure that no packets go through a deleted flow after
>> >> > it's deleted? ??On the dele
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> > Could we just use the existing spinlock in sw_flow plus the 'dead'
> >> > variable to ensure that no packets go through a deleted flow after
> >> > it's deleted? ??On the delete side, take the spinlock and set 'dead'.
> >> > On the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:24:38PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> >> >
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:46:11PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:24:38PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wro
When a flow consists solely of an output to OFPP_CONTROLLER, we avoid a
round trip to the kernel and back by calling execute_controller_action()
from handle_flow_miss(). However, execute_controller_action() frees the
packet passed in. This is dangerous, because the packet and the upcall
key are i
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:24:38PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> > A workaround would be to call synchronize_rcu() and send
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > A workaround would be to call synchronize_rcu() and send the genl
>> > reply from some context that doesn't hold genl_lock, b
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:42:09PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Post version 1.4.*, we are planning to change the default bond_mode
> from balance-slb to active-backup. This commit warns users of the
> change so that they can prepare.
Looks good, thank you.
__
This needs a signed-off-by.
Ethan
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 13:42, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Post version 1.4.*, we are planning to change the default bond_mode
> from balance-slb to active-backup. This commit warns users of the
> change so that they can prepare.
> ---
> NEWS | 7 ++
Post version 1.4.*, we are planning to change the default bond_mode
from balance-slb to active-backup. This commit warns users of the
change so that they can prepare.
---
NEWS |7 +++
vswitchd/bridge.c | 20 +++-
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletion
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> That's true; I don't really think that the whole worker thread concept
> is really all that great overall anyways.
>
> > A workaround would be to call synchronize_rcu() and send the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:42:21AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> > ?? ?? ?? ??3. Somehow actually eliminate the problem with deleting
>> >> > flows,
>> >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? so that when userspace receives the response to the flow
>> >> > ?? ??
You need a Signed-off-by. Otherwise looks good.
Ethan
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:35:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> I think I'm going to try to write some unit tests for this before I
>> push it.
>
> I wrote some, but the unit test revealed a bu
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:42:21AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> > ?? ?? ?? ??3. Somehow actually eliminate the problem with deleting flows,
> >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? so that when userspace receives the response to the flow
> >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? deletion we know that no more packets can go through the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:35:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I think I'm going to try to write some unit tests for this before I
> push it.
I wrote some, but the unit test revealed a bug in the "dummy" dpif.
Please review this, and then I'll push both patches:
--8<--cut he
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:34:04PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > Why do we care? ??Current userspace isn't really affected. ??At most, we
>> > get flow statistics wrong by one packet (I gues
Ben and I talked this over offline and came to the following conclusion.
This could potentially be a disruptive change, but we do want to
encourage users to use active-backup instead of SLB in general. For
now, we will update NEWS indicating that we intend to switch to
active-backup as a default.
Hi,
please don’t get offended at my email because i send it for a good cause. I
have an intention of helping the needy so my mail here may seem unusual to you,
but please read it and will find out what i am trying to do.
My name’s Mrs Aurora Romero, i am 72 years old, i live in England. I am
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:34:04PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Why do we care? ??Current userspace isn't really affected. ??At most, we
> > get flow statistics wrong by one packet (I guess multiple packets is
> > theoretically possible?), if an
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 02:50:43PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?tag_set_add(&o->revalidate_set, e->tag);
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?mac_learning_expire (o->ml, e);
>
> Redundant space in this function call.
Thanks, removed.
> As I read this, I was wondering
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:50:39PM -0800, Ansis Atteka wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > +const char *
> > +eth_from_hex(const char *hex, struct ofpbuf **packetp)
> > +{
> > +struct ofpbuf *packet;
> > +
> > +packet = *packetp = ofpbuf_new(strlen(hex) / 2);
> >
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:21:13PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Since SLB bonds are fairly risky (see vswitchd/INTERNALS), it seems
> prudent to require users to explicitly configure them. This patch
> defaults to active-backup bonds when no other bond_mode is
> explicitly specified.
>
> Signed-
Hi Folks,
I set up a VM to access its network via a tap connected to an OVS datapath
(the tap is added as a 'system' port). In my system the VM's network is
virtual - isolated from other VMs and from the host OS. Yet, the VM still
receives some packets from the host OS (e.g. ICMP6) and this breaks
Respond For More Details.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
28 matches
Mail list logo
