Thanks for reminding me. I backported it.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:43:13PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Thanks, Ben,
>
> This patch needs back port to branch 2.0 as well.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:21:15PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
>
Thanks, Ben,
This patch needs back port to branch 2.0 as well.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:21:15PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > Commit 9d189a50e (ofproto-dpif-xlate: Pull STP xlation into
> > ofproto-dpif-xlate.) introduced the bug that consider
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:21:15PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Commit 9d189a50e (ofproto-dpif-xlate: Pull STP xlation into
> ofproto-dpif-xlate.) introduced the bug that considers 'stp_port_no'
> of 0 as stp disabled on the port. However 'stp_port_no' is
> actually the index of the stp struct's port
Commit 9d189a50e (ofproto-dpif-xlate: Pull STP xlation into
ofproto-dpif-xlate.) introduced the bug that considers 'stp_port_no'
of 0 as stp disabled on the port. However 'stp_port_no' is
actually the index of the stp struct's port array and ranges
between [0, STP_MAX_PORTS). So the bug allows th
