Thanks for the answers. This is good enough. ;D
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:14:49PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > But I still want to ask, what is the performance cost caused by using
> > vlan-splinter? Is that in that the using device driver can
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:14:49PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> But I still want to ask, what is the performance cost caused by using
> vlan-splinter? Is that in that the using device driver can be faster than
> matching datapath flow?
Looking up the splinter ports, on input and output, in an extra h
Sorry Ben for the bugging,
But I still want to ask, what is the performance cost caused by using
vlan-splinter? Is that in that the using device driver can be faster than
matching datapath flow?
Thanks a lot ;D
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
h
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 01:33:33PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Thanks Ben,
>
> I noticed that my third comment was wrong by experiment. The following is
> just a resend of my previous email with the code review:
>
> "
>
> > 3. The packets with vlan header are missed in kernel and examined in
> > "
Thanks Ben,
I noticed that my third comment was wrong by experiment. The following is
just a resend of my previous email with the code review:
"
> 3. The packets with vlan header are missed in kernel and examined in
> "ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c". The "vsp_vlandev_to_realdev()" and
> "vsp_realdev_to
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:16:15PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the answers,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:56:31PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> >> > 1. What is usually the
>
> 3. The packets with vlan header are missed in kernel and examined in
> "ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c". The "vsp_vlandev_to_realdev()" and
> "vsp_realdev_to_vlandev()" are used to convert between "vlandev port" and
> "realdev port". And the performance cost is in that there is no datapath
> flow insta
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
> Thanks for the answers,
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:56:31PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
>> > 1. What is usually the bug in the buggy driver? How can using
>> vlan-splinter
>> > avoid that? I
Thanks for the answers,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:56:31PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > 1. What is usually the bug in the buggy driver? How can using
> vlan-splinter
> > avoid that? I'm a bit confused here, since the "vlandev.c" code still
> tal
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:56:31PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> 1. What is usually the bug in the buggy driver? How can using vlan-splinter
> avoid that? I'm a bit confused here, since the "vlandev.c" code still talks
> to linux device driver (e.g. when creating ADD_VLAN_CMD) via the "ioctl"
> call.
Thanks for the explanation,
Have few more questions below,
1. What is usually the bug in the buggy driver? How can using vlan-splinter
avoid that? I'm a bit confused here, since the "vlandev.c" code still talks
to linux device driver (e.g. when creating ADD_VLAN_CMD) via the "ioctl"
call.
2. If
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:40:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> I saw the AF_INET is used when creating the socket (to be used in
> "ioctl(sock, SIOCSIFVLAN, via)"). Seems to me that we cannot use netlink
> socket here, right? And, generally speaking, is that true that we can only
> use AF_INET, to ta
Hey Ben,
I'm learning vlan while reviewing this patch. Want to ask a question
unrelated to this patch but vlan.
I saw the AF_INET is used when creating the socket (to be used in
"ioctl(sock, SIOCSIFVLAN, via)"). Seems to me that we cannot use netlink
socket here, right? And, generally speaking,
13 matches
Mail list logo
