That sounds fine by me.
On 25 February 2014 22:22, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Joe, based on Ethan's feedback I'll drop this for now unless you prefer
> otherwise.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:37:05PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > I'm not sure this patch makes sense in the current code. If a
> > re
Joe, based on Ethan's feedback I'll drop this for now unless you prefer
otherwise.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:37:05PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> I'm not sure this patch makes sense in the current code. If a
> revalidation failed, that's probably because the rules used to create
> the flow chan
I'm not sure this patch makes sense in the current code. If a
revalidation failed, that's probably because the rules used to create
the flow changed, in which case we'd be accounting packets to the
wrong rules. This is arguable worse than missing the packets all
together.
Once we change the code
A flow's statistics could be partially lost in the following situation:
* A flow is dumped from the datapath
* Some traffic hits that flow
* Revalidation fails for that flow
Previously, we would delete such a flow without fetching the latest
statistics for it, causing the intermediate statistics t
