On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:16:51PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> This patch looks good to me.
Thanks.
> Out of curiosity, why not just create the bridge port record manually
> ourselves when it doesn't exist?
That could be a reasonable solution too, or at least part of one. The
main reason I didn't choose to do it that way is that, currently,
ovs-vswitchd only writes to columns that are reserved for it to write
to. ovs-vswitchd never creates or deletes records and never
overwrites columns that are not reserved for it. Creating a record
and adding it to a bridge would be a change in this policy. That's
not necessarily bad, but I didn't feel sufficiently motivated by this
corner case to change it.
Another (fairly minor) reason is that a change to the database
actually *disappears* as soon as you call ovsdb_idl_txn_commit().[*]
So we'd still have to deal with the missing record at least until the
next time we poll the database.
[*] That's because "commit" just ships the transaction off to the
database. It doesn't ensure that the updated state is exactly the
set of changes that the database will make--it might abort the
transaction, for example--and so the updates have to be rolled
back until the database notifies us of the actual new state.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
