Thanks, it's really more realistic.
On 2016/7/28 22:53, Guru Shetty wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 07:48, Guru Shetty > wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 06:55, Dong Jun > wrote:
Yes, this test case fail
On 28 July 2016 at 07:48, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 28 July 2016 at 06:55, Dong Jun wrote:
>
>> Yes, this test case fail currently and success with the modification.
>> If there is another same test case, ignore this patch is OK.
>>
>
> Thank you for the test.
On 28 July 2016 at 06:55, Dong Jun wrote:
> Yes, this test case fail currently and success with the modification.
> If there is another same test case, ignore this patch is OK.
>
Thank you for the test. I applied the linked patch by Chandra as it was
already reviewed and
Yes, this test case fail currently and success with the modification.
If there is another same test case, ignore this patch is OK.
On 2016/7/28 21:31, Guru Shetty wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 23:30, Dongjun > wrote:
Signed-off-by: Dongjun
On 27 July 2016 at 23:30, Dongjun wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Dongjun
>
Usually, we have a test with the corresponding code change. Can you have a
look at https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openvswitch.org/msg66099.html and
see whether you are happy with the
Signed-off-by: Dongjun
---
tests/system-ovn.at | 106 +++-
1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
mode change 100644 => 100755 tests/system-ovn.at
diff --git a/tests/system-ovn.at b/tests/system-ovn.at
old mode 100644
Signed-off-by: Dongjun
---
tests/system-ovn.at | 106 +++-
1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
mode change 100644 => 100755 tests/system-ovn.at
diff --git a/tests/system-ovn.at b/tests/system-ovn.at
old mode 100644