That's a non-static function, or an extern function, or a function with
external linkage.
That sounds fine to me.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:14:47PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> I mean non static function,
>
> I don't know if there is a term for that,
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Ben P
I mean non static function,
I don't know if there is a term for that,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> What's a normal function?
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > Hey Ben,
> >
> > With your change of execute_actions() function in
> ofproto/o
What's a normal function?
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Hey Ben,
>
> With your change of execute_actions() function in ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c, I
> think it is better to reuse that code,
>
> So, I want to convert the execute_actions() as normal function. And use it
Hey Ben,
With your change of execute_actions() function in ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c, I
think it is better to reuse that code,
So, I want to convert the execute_actions() as normal function. And use it
in the xlate_send_packet().
How do you think?
Thanks,
Alex Wang,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:5
Commit 91d6cd12 (ofproto-dpif: Move send_packet() to ofproto-dpif-xlate
module.) introduced the bug that uninit the "struct xlate_out" when
the struct is not initialized. This commit fixes the bug.
Reported-by: Simon Horman
Signed-off-by: Alex Wang
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c |3 +--
My patch 91d6cd12 (ofproto-dpif: Move send_packet() to ofproto-dpif-xlate
module.) introduced a bug. (call xlate_out_uninit() when xout is
uninitialized)
I'll send a fix soon,
Thanks for reporting that,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Just to confirm with yo
Hi Simon,
Just to confirm with you,
Are these two tests broken?
1: bfd - basic config on different bridges
2: bfd - Verify tunnel down detection
All other tests passed?
Thanks,
Alex Wang
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Ethan,
>
> I have investigated slightly furth
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wro
Hi Ethan,
I have investigated slightly further and it seems that the problem
does not manifest when compiling with clang but does manifest
when compiling with gcc.
# clang --version
Debian clang version 3.4-1~exp1 (trunk) (based on LLVM 3.4)
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
# cc -
This is a first step towards implementing the dpif side of groups.
In order to be useful the action translation code needs
to be taught about groups.
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman
---
v4 - v6
* No change
v3
* Rebase for "ofproto-dpif: Hide struct rule_dpif internally"
* Hide group_dpif in a sim
Hi,
After a bit of a hiatus I would like to revisit this series.
I have rebased it and addressed the issues which I felt
were conclusively discussed in response to v3 of this patchset.
This series is comprised of two components.
A. Support write actions.
With this in place it is possible to
Allow translation of indirect and all groups. Also allow insertion of
indirect and all groups by changing the maximum permitted number in the
groups table from 0 to OFPG_MAX.
Implementation note:
After translating the actions for each bucket ctx->flow is reset to its
state prior to translation o
Implementation note:
All actions which modify a field are added to the action set
at the point where "set" actions should be added. In general
modifying a field many times is the same as only modifying it
the last time so the implementation simply adds all set actions to
the action set in the orde
Fast failover groups use the actions in
the first bucket that is alive.
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman
---
v6
* First post
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 97 +++-
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.h | 3 +-
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 +-
ofproto/ofprot
I can't reproduce the failure, are you still seeing it?
Ethan
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Looking into it, should have checked before merging.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> Curiously, making the stub non-static seems to break
>
Looking into it, should have checked before merging.
Ethan
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> Curiously, making the stub non-static seems to break
> at least the first two tests of the test-suite.
> I assume its exposing a bug but I haven't investigated further.
>
> On Thu, O
Curiously, making the stub non-static seems to break
at least the first two tests of the test-suite.
I assume its exposing a bug but I haven't investigated further.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:18:17PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Oops didn't notice that it was. I'll change it before merging.
>
>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoito
Oops didn't notice that it was. I'll change it before merging.
Ethan
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:57:51PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> Stubs must be uninitialized when used in case they allocate memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
>
>
Thanks Ben for pointing it out, another mistake I made,
There is reason for it to be 'static'.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:57:51PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > Stubs must be uninitialized when used in case they allocate memory.
> >
> > Sign
Thanks Ethan,
Looks good to me,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Stubs must be uninitialized when used in case they allocate memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-monitor.c | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletion
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:57:51PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Stubs must be uninitialized when used in case they allocate memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
Also, stubs shouldn't ordinarily be static, any particular reason the
one here is?
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff
Stubs must be uninitialized when used in case they allocate memory.
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-monitor.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-monitor.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-monitor.c
index a0c3843..75fd
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar w
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Romain Lenglet wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
>> This prevents using an older datapath from breaking forwarding.
>>
>> CC: Romain Lenglet
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
>> ---
>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-ipfix.c | 28 ++---
>> ofproto/o
On Oct 7, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This prevents using an older datapath from breaking forwarding.
>
> CC: Romain Lenglet
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-ipfix.c | 28 ++---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-ipfix.h |5 ++-
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c |
Looks good to me, thanks!
Acked-by: Romain Lenglet
--
Romain Lenglet
On Oct 7, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Before commit e995e3df57ea (Allow OVS_USERSPACE_ATTR_USERDATA to be
> variable length.) userdata attributes in userspace actions were expected
> to be exactly 64 bits long. The
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:22:25PM -0700, Reid Price wrote:
>>> Hi Luigi,
>>>
>>> At some level it is a logical error to create flows that:
>>> - have the same priority
>>> - have ov
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wro
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:22:25PM -0700, Reid Price wrote:
>> Hi Luigi,
>>
>> At some level it is a logical error to create flows that:
>> - have the same priority
>> - have overlapping match criteria
>> - have different actions
>>
>> You
32 matches
Mail list logo
