Thanks, applied to branch-1.4.
At the same time, I noticed that I had forgotten to tag 1.4.6, so I
did that too.
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:55:58AM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> The code's tricky, but I looked over it a couple of times, and it
> looks reasonable to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Justin
The code's tricky, but I looked over it a couple of times, and it looks
reasonable to me.
Thanks,
--Justin
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> In the case where execute_controller_action() returned true to
> handle_flow_miss(), indicating that the packet had been sent to the
> c
I forgot to note in this version that this applies to branch-1.4.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:23:00AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> In the case where execute_controller_action() returned true to
> handle_flow_miss(), indicating that the packet had been sent to the
> controller, nothing ever freed the p
In the case where execute_controller_action() returned true to
handle_flow_miss(), indicating that the packet had been sent to the
controller, nothing ever freed the packet, causing a memory leak.
One plausible solution seemed to be to turn over ownership of the packet to
execute_controller_action
Thanks,
Pushed to master.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> If this subset of the previous patch is unchanged (I think so at first
> glance) then it's good, thank you, please commit.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://ope
If this subset of the previous patch is unchanged (I think so at first
glance) then it's good, thank you, please commit.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index 14b5447..57534e3 100644
--- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
+++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
@@ -2573,6 +2573,7 @@ handle_miss_upcalls(struct ofproto_dpi
