> (By the way, you can actually give the struct and the function the
> same name.)
Hmm, my compiler was complaining about it for some reason. It must
have been something else. Anyways, I think it's confusing to give
them the same name at the very least.
Thanks for the review, I'll merge this s
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 02:29:41PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > Why did you change the name of "struct ofproto_trace"? I thought it
> > was an OK name.
>
> I thought it was a better name for the function than the struct. Also
> we have a precedent for using ctx in the names of these sorts of
> Why did you change the name of "struct ofproto_trace"? I thought it
> was an OK name.
I thought it was a better name for the function than the struct. Also
we have a precedent for using ctx in the names of these sorts of
things. That was my reasoning at least, I really don't care what it's
na
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 05:33:47PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> It can be very difficult to debug xlate_actions() failures due to
> excessive resubmit recursion. In an attempt to make it easier,
> this patch adds a (severely rate-limited) full ofproto/trace to the
> logs.
>
> Suggested-by: Alan
It can be very difficult to debug xlate_actions() failures due to
excessive resubmit recursion. In an attempt to make it easier,
this patch adds a (severely rate-limited) full ofproto/trace to the
logs.
Suggested-by: Alan Shieh
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 91 +++
