> On May 4, 2020, at 3:46 PM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
> More inline:
>> On 4 May 2020, at 19:20, Paul Vinciguerra wrote:
>>
>> I agree that the change I submitted is a monster. Honestly, there are 2-5
>> git-friendly changes that could be refactored out of it. Its written and
>> used by
Does anything exist beyond the description on the wiki?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#16235): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16235
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/73983633/21656
Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
Thanks for writing! Since i was the “-2“, first exec summary and then points
inline:
- CRC changing changes in 10 unrelated .api files at this point in time are
borderline hostile activity to downstream users. Every CRC change means changes
are required downstream. Sure it’s master but some fo
In [live, not core-file] gdb, try this:
(gdb) p pifi(pool, )
Which will tell you if is free (invalid) or not (valid).
Also:
(gdb) p pool_elts(pool)
To see how many elements are in the pool.
Finally:
(gdb) p vl(pool)
To what vec_len(pool) is.
HTH... Dave
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Beha
Having some issue while accessing entries of a pool in GDB.
I have a pool of some structures.
custom_struct *pool;
This custom_struct has alignment with 64 byte cache_line.
now, I have added 3 entries in this pool. The code seems to be working fine in
adding/deleting/traversing this pool using
I was -2'd this morning for submitting a change with a "blast radius" this
close to api freeze [0]. It was suggested that it should be discussed on the
dev list and that multiple parties outside of vpp should have to +1 it. I am
glad to start the conversation.
My change is dependent on anothe
After multiple amended commits to fix python style errors, a new version with
v4/v6 API tests has been uploaded.
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/26829
Thanks,
Chris.
> On May 2, 2020, at 5:25 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> I was able to do a minimal test on it so I submitted, but please review
Appears I misunderstood the capacity planning WRT the CSIT testing -
so please disregard
my 20.01.1 mail this mail replies to.
I will send an announcement separately when we finalize the date for
the 20.01.1.
--a
(your friendly, even if slightly confused, 20.01 release manager)
On 5/4/20, Andrew
Hello all,
>From "stable/2001 branch" news department: we are planning to tag the
20.01.1 release this Wednesday.
Please let me know ASAP if you have some work in progress that must be
included in it.
cheers,
andrew
(your friendly 20.01 release manager)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive
Hi all,
This Wednesday, 6th of May, is the scheduled date [0] for the F0 - API
Freeze - milestone.
At that point, until the new stable/2005 branch is pulled, there will
be no API changes allowed on master branch, and we will limit the
commits to only low-risk changes.
Please drop me an email to
Hi Paul, et al,
> I've run into an api where the api was changed and the SCRIPT: output wasn't
> updated to match.
> I'd like to clean it up. What is the best way to verify that the api_format
> code is correct?
>
> Is a self.vapi.cli("binary-api foo") in a python unit test sufficient?
> -=
Hi Chris,
With SAs there are two scenarios to consider for inflight packets
1) the SA is unlinked
2) the SA is deleted.
We've talked at length about how to deal with 2).
By 'unlinked' I mean that whatever config dictated that an SA be used has now
gone (like tunnel protection or SPD policy).
12 matches
Mail list logo
