On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 6 September 2017 at 15:24, Andy Zhou wrote:
>> The bug can cause ovs-vswitchd to crash (due to assert) when it is
>> set up with a passive controller connection. Since only active
>> connections are kept, the
On 6 September 2017 at 15:24, Andy Zhou wrote:
> The bug can cause ovs-vswitchd to crash (due to assert) when it is
> set up with a passive controller connection. Since only active
> connections are kept, the passive connection status update should be
> ignored and not trigger
The bug can cause ovs-vswitchd to crash (due to assert) when it is
set up with a passive controller connection. Since only active
connections are kept, the passive connection status update should be
ignored and not trigger asserts.
Reported-by: Josh Bailey
Signed-off-by: Andy
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Andy Zhou wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Greg Rose wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 16:16 -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
>>> When multiple bridges connects to the same controller, the controller
>>> status should be
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Greg Rose wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 16:16 -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
>> When multiple bridges connects to the same controller, the controller
>> status should be maintained separately for each bridge. Current
>> logic pushes status updates
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 16:16 -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> When multiple bridges connects to the same controller, the controller
> status should be maintained separately for each bridge. Current
> logic pushes status updates only based on the connection string,
> which is the same across multiple
When multiple bridges connects to the same controller, the controller
status should be maintained separately for each bridge. Current
logic pushes status updates only based on the connection string,
which is the same across multiple bridges when connecting to the
same controller.
Report-at: