On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > I don't think memory issues are a real consideration here. The common
> > case is exactly one subfacet per facet. So I would do whichever you
> > think makes more logical sense.
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I don't think memory issues are a real consideration here. The common
> case is exactly one subfacet per facet. So I would do whichever you
> think makes more logical sense. I think the subfacet is logically
> a better location, but I can live w
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:46:57AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:03:05AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote:
> >> Commit acf608 (ofproto-dpif: Use a single underlying datapath across
> >> multiple bridges.) causes datapath
On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:03:05AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote:
>> Commit acf608 (ofproto-dpif: Use a single underlying datapath across
>> multiple bridges.) causes datapath flows from deleted ports to not be
>> removed. The issue is that the code
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:03:05AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote:
> Commit acf608 (ofproto-dpif: Use a single underlying datapath across
> multiple bridges.) causes datapath flows from deleted ports to not be
> removed. The issue is that the code that bulk deletes old flows doesn't
> know the datapat
Commit acf608 (ofproto-dpif: Use a single underlying datapath across
multiple bridges.) causes datapath flows from deleted ports to not be
removed. The issue is that the code that bulk deletes old flows doesn't
know the datapath port number that makes up the datapath flow
definition. This commit
