> It looks like your incremental removes the behavior but not the
> comment.
Oops, fixed.
Ethan
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:33:26PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > Questions
> > -
> >
> > bridge_reconfigure_ofp() has the following comment:
> > /* Do any work needed to complete configuration. Don't consider ourselves
> > * done unless no work was needed in this iteration. This gu
Here's an incremental.
---
vswitchd/bridge.c | 382 +
1 file changed, 177 insertions(+), 205 deletions(-)
diff --git a/vswitchd/bridge.c b/vswitchd/bridge.c
index d7a9e88..d0a0300 100644
--- a/vswitchd/bridge.c
+++ b/vswitchd/bridge.c
@@ -62,1
> Questions
> -
>
> bridge_reconfigure_ofp() has the following comment:
> /* Do any work needed to complete configuration. Don't consider ourselves
> * done unless no work was needed in this iteration. This guarantees that
> * ofproto_run() has a chance to respond to newly added p
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 02:22:48PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-optimal.
> When adding lots of new ports, on every pass through the run loop
> it allocates a bunch of "struct iface"s and "struct port"s, only to
> destroy them when out of time
git shortlog -sn gives you an ordered list btw
On Apr 22, 2012, at 19:48, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:44:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
>> 1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
>
> Unle
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:44:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
> 1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
Unless only commits in the openvswitch.org tree count, it's four:
blp@blp:~/nicira/ovs$ git log origin/
Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
Ethan
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 18:38, Justin Pettit wrote:
> Does that mean we have to buy you another cookie?
>
> --Justin
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Ethan Jackson
Does that mean we have to buy you another cookie?
--Justin
On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Assuming this makes it in, will be my 500th commit.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 14:22, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-opt
Assuming this makes it in, will be my 500th commit.
Ethan
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 14:22, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-optimal.
> When adding lots of new ports, on every pass through the run loop
> it allocates a bunch of "struct iface"s and "stru
The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-optimal.
When adding lots of new ports, on every pass through the run loop
it allocates a bunch of "struct iface"s and "struct port"s, only to
destroy them when out of time. Additionally, when there are errors
adding or deleting ports, it can
11 matches
Mail list logo
