> From: Simon Horman
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:53:35 +0900
>
> > This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> > provides
> > a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them
> > in some
> > alternate way.
> >
> > It is intended to be used by an implem
> This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> provides
> a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in
> some
> alternate way.
>
> It is intended to be used by an implementation of the STT tunneling
> protocol within Open vSwtich's datapath. A pro
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> STT isn't really doing TCP, it just lying and pretending to be
> TCP to allow TSO to work! There is no packet ordering, sequence
> numbers or any real transport layer.
True. It is a nice engineering hack but even as a protocol enhance
This is great, Ben. Just a few minor things:
> +Out-of-band control has the following benefits:
> +
> +- Simplicity: Out-of-band control slightly simplifies the switch
> + implementation.
> +
> +- Reliability: Excessive switch traffic volume cannot interfere
> + with control tra
From: Jamal Hadi Salim
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:54:42 -0400
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>> Therefore Simon's
>> proposed hook is the only way to support it. But exposing that
>> hook does allow for other misuse.
>
> If you object to this, then you gotta obje
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 08:24:35AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> > This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> > provides
> > a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in
> > some
> > alternate way.
> >
> > It is intended to be used by an
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 08:36:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:24:05AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > This may be used in a similar way to nxm_mf_fields
> > to handle parsing and serialisation of OXM TLVs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman
>
> My own thought for how to
---
vswitchd/bridge.c |2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/vswitchd/bridge.c b/vswitchd/bridge.c
index f4a10e6..15f6cb7 100644
--- a/vswitchd/bridge.c
+++ b/vswitchd/bridge.c
@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ struct iface {
struct hmap_node name_node; /* In struct bridge's "iface_by_name"
The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-optimal.
When adding lots of new ports, on every pass through the run loop
it allocates a bunch of "struct iface"s and "struct port"s, only to
destroy them when out of time. Additionally, when there are errors
adding or deleting ports, it can
Assuming this makes it in, will be my 500th commit.
Ethan
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 14:22, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-optimal.
> When adding lots of new ports, on every pass through the run loop
> it allocates a bunch of "struct iface"s and "stru
Does that mean we have to buy you another cookie?
--Justin
On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Assuming this makes it in, will be my 500th commit.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 14:22, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> The existing bridge_reconfigure() implementation is sub-opt
Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
Ethan
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 18:38, Justin Pettit wrote:
> Does that mean we have to buy you another cookie?
>
> --Justin
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Ethan Jackson
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:44:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
> 1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
Unless only commits in the openvswitch.org tree count, it's four:
blp@blp:~/nicira/ovs$ git log origin/
git shortlog -sn gives you an ordered list btw
On Apr 22, 2012, at 19:48, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:44:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> Oh no, I plan to buy myself a glass of scotch and a slice of pie.
>> 1000 commits would be a cookie. I think we owe Ben two.
>
> Unle
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:54:42AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > STT isn't really doing TCP, it just lying and pretending to be
> > TCP to allow TSO to work! There is no packet ordering, sequence
> > numbers or any real transport
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 01:11:39PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 03:53:35PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> > This is a not yet well exercised implementation of
16 matches
Mail list logo
