Thanks
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> Good Idea, here's a new version. The only change is the unit tests.
>
> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff
X-CudaMail-Whitelist-To: dev@openvswitch.org
__
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Good Idea, here's a new version. The only change is the unit tests.
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Good Idea, here's a new version. The only change is the unit tests.
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 30 ++
tests/ofproto-dpif.at|4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpi
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:00:11PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > I'm OK with changing the implementation, but I don't like the idea of
> > the externally visible behavior changing. What if, instead of doing
> > this iteratively, we simply don't penalize goto_table actions with
> > taking up a le
> I'm OK with changing the implementation, but I don't like the idea of
> the externally visible behavior changing. What if, instead of doing
> this iteratively, we simply don't penalize goto_table actions with
> taking up a level of resubmit? We limit the levels of resubmit to
> avoid loops, but
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:29:10PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> This patch reverts commit 5559942 (ofproto-dpif: GOTO_TABLE recursion
> removal.) by reintroducing the recursion through xlate_table_action().
> The main reason to do this is the introduction of new rule locking in
> future patches.
This patch reverts commit 5559942 (ofproto-dpif: GOTO_TABLE recursion
removal.) by reintroducing the recursion through xlate_table_action().
The main reason to do this is the introduction of new rule locking in
future patches. The code before this patch was relatively difficult
to lock in a clean
Doh, please ignore this version of the patch. Doesn't pass the unit tests.
Ethan
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> This optimization makes reference counting rules unnecessarily hard in
> future patches. I doubt it makes much performance difference, so this
> patch drops
This optimization makes reference counting rules unnecessarily hard in
future patches. I doubt it makes much performance difference, so this
patch drops it for now.
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 30 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(
